This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I need assistance, please, preferably from an editor familiar with the definition of intersectionality and how it is applied in Wikipedia articles. There are three issues here:

1) I am trying to add the unique experience of African-American women to an Juneteenth article. The article covers the history of the abolition of slavery and the Juneteenth holiday, and how it is commemorated. As it stands, the article is not neutral. It has a sex bias lacking in intersectional awareness. It implies that all African-Americans were equally legally emancipated in 1866, that all African-Americans agreed that they were emancipated and that all African-Americans celebrate Juneteenth in that context. However while all of that may be true for African-American men, none of it is true for African-American women.

I added a section titled "Honoring African-American women’s rights leaders in Juneteenth Celebrations" noting how Juneteenth celebrations acknowledge the unfinished business of emancipation of African-American women who were under coverture (which the United Nations defines as a form of slavery) and how Juneteenth celebrations honor the legacy of African-American women leaders at the time who were very vocal about their frustration with this lack of legal emancipation. All of this was amply sourced to RS, connecting it to Juneteenth celebrations.

My edits have been repeatedly removed even though I have discussed the concerns of others in the talk section and made good faith efforts to accommodate them.

Most recently, the editors left up the names of Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper and Pauli Murray, but censored their opinions about African-American women's lack of legal emancipation that I directly quoted and sourced and which is commemorated in Juneteenth celebrations. My edit was gutted of its meaning and these women were propped up like sock puppets with no voice.

2) Additionally troubling is the inconsistency in how intersectional content is allowed or censored across Wiki articles. In the article on the 19th Amendment, for example, the unfinished business of voting rights for African-American women because of race discrimination is (rightly) included as relevant. But here the unfinished business of emancipation for African-American women--and noting how that history is commemorated in intersectional Juneteenth celebrations (with links to RS making that connection)--is being labeled as "off topic" and "too much feminism," whatever that means.

3) I also want another pair of eyes on this because multiple editors on this page are making personal attacks. My words were mocked back to me, I was gaslit as "callous" and accused of lacking good faith and "unjustly divising" my edits and only wanting to "Right a Great Wrong." Two different editors made sarcastic remarks about my motivations, which are personal attacks in violation of Talk Page standards. On more than one occasion I was invited to apply my talents elsewhere, which is a subtle form of telling a person they are not wanted and creates a hostile climate that shames people who attempt to improve articles with intersectional analysis.

It's not biased to point out bias. And correcting that bias with balance brings the article to neutrality. As it is, the article is not neutral. It treats the experience of African-American men as "real" history and actively censors the unique and different experience of African-American women, past and present and literally censors their voices. As in, "Well, we'll mention their names to appear inclusive, but we won't actually print their relevant opinions on this topic. They can be seen, but not heard."

I am concerned about the views expressed by the editors on this page and would like some outside eyes to give their take on this edit. Editors are also explicitly expressing their resistance to including anything they believe reflects negatively on the history of Juneteenth and how people celebrate it. And that should not be the standard for whether or not relevant intersectional content is included. Inclusion of diverse voices improves articles, makes history more accurate and guards against majority tyranny in recording history.

To sum up:

This article has an implicit bias that assumes that the experience of African-American men is the experience of all African-Americans. It isn't.

African-American women were not "legally emancipated" in 1866

African-American women were under coverture, a form of slavery recognized by the U.N. as such

African-American women leaders were aware of that and vocally expressed their frustration at the time, resisting coverture

Juneteenth celebrations today note that unfinished business and honor the African-American women who resisted male supremacist coverture in both the 19th and 20th centuries

I connected all that to reputable sources

Wikipedia notes the unfinished business towards African-American women on other pages because of racial bias, such as the article of women's suffrage that discusses Jim Crow

An article on the abolition of slavery that discusses coverture is exactly parallel

Determining that a discussion of Jim Crow on a suffrage page is relevant but a discussion of coverture on an emancipation page is irrelevant is a biased double standard

Multiple editors are violating Talk page standards making personal attacks against me in an attempt to censor this edit

Outside eyes are needed.

Thank you.

You can read the relevant edits here: My edit: ^[1]

The changes to my edit: ^[2]

AmorLucis ( talk) 07:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I empathize with the changes that you're trying to make but I don't think the sources support them. Most of your citations were to primary sources that didn't directly support the claims being made or even mention Juneteenth at all. I understand your argument that the sources are relevant because they're by/about African-Americans and unfinished/unequal emancipation, but, as editors, we can't make that connection. Our "job" is to summarize what the sources actually say, and if they don't directly address Juneteenth, we can't make them do so. What you'd need to find are reliable, third-party published sources—i.e., by scholars/experts/journalists in journals/books/magazine, online or offline—that directly address Juneteenth and misogyny, coverture, assault, and so on. Woodroar ( talk) 13:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want to second this comment. I'm very sympathetic to the OP's concerns, but the sourcing used in the material that was reverted isn't about Juneteenth, and doesn't even mention the holiday from what I see.

There's an argument to be made that we can use these sources to make statements about the issue once a connection has been established, but these sources can't be used to establish that connection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for you replies and your empathy and support (and respectful communication, which I did not receive in the talk section of this article). So, you are saying that if I find an RS that links Juneteenth to the subject of coverture, then an argument can be made for introducing the quotes in the second paragraph? Didn't I do that already? There's a source in the first paragraph that explicitly says

“countless others” who “fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens.” That is referring to coverture, by definition. For example, if a source said "countless others who fought for African-Americans to be seen as citizens" couldn't I then discuss discriminatory laws that in practice, excluded African-Americans from citizenship? and quote MLK's speeches on Civil Rights law? In fact, wouldn't I have to, to provide needed context? What does "seen as citizens" mean? It means changing the law, right? In this case, changing the law of coverture. Does the word "coverture" have to be used if the definition of coverture is implied in the RS? In other words, my concern here is that editors don't understand coverture. The quote I used is referring to coverture. AmorLucis ( talk) 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a source which explicitly discusses how Black women remained disenfranchised (not necessarily in the specific sense of the word) in the context of Juneteenth, then you could paraphrase that source in the article, and possibly use one of the sources that don't mention Juneteenth to expound upon some points mentioned in that other, so long as there's a direct link between that second source and the first.

This is a tricky element of writing for WP, so let me give an example. Note that this example is "dumbed down" a bit; this is not because I think you need a dumbed down example, but because the situation would be less easy for me to relate if I chose an equally complex example.

Let's say I'm on the article Norse mythology, and I want to write about how that subject plays out in fiction. As an example, I'm going to make reference to the film Avengers: Infinity War, because it contains some characters based on Norse mythology.

The first source I need is one that explicitly supports the contention that those characters are indeed based on Norse mythology, and do not simply share names. After all, it's arguable that they're based on the comic book characters, which themselves are based as much upon existing comic book character archetypes as they are on the mythology. So I find that source, and I paraphrase it to mention that Norse mythology can, in part, be seen reflected in that films.

Now, I want to lay out how Norse mythology is reflected in that films. At this point, I don't need a source which explicitly connects the films to the mythology; I can use a source that simply describes the elements of the film, and selectively summarize it's descriptions of those elements which I already know are based in Norse mythology. This is because we've established the connection using the first source.

Note that there's a possible pitfall here: Should I describe Thanos in that process, that would undoubtedly be WP:SYNTH, because Thanos is not a character from Norse mythology. But so long as I confined myself to describing Thor, Loki and Eitri, then there's no WP:OR involved.

So in this case, you can find a source that discusses how Juneteenth had a lesser impact on Black women by, for example, not giving them the right to vote. Then you could discuss what effects not having the right to vote had on Black women using a source that doesn't mention Juneteenth, and cite that source for that content. But you must be careful when doing so that the effects described stem from the same issue that is described in the first source, else you'll be engaging in WP:SYNTH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think, from your words, that perhaps you do not understand what coverture is, so perhaps you cannot see how I did connect it to Juneteenth with a source.

Coverture is not about Black women being "disenfranchised" or wanting "the right to vote." Coverture is a form of domestic servitude that falls under the United Nations' definition of "slavery." In fact, in the early history of colonial America, when the first African enslaved people arrived, they were initially given the legal status of "wives" (whether they were male or female) because married women were in a state of slavery under the doctrine of coverture. This is a true, attributable fact of history that the majority of "lay" people do not know or understand. A fact is still a fact, whether or not it is a well known fact.

The Juneteenth article itself currently uses the word "freedmen" three times when referring to the people who were emancipated. That's because Black men were emancipated from slavery, not Black women. Implicit in the term "freedmen" is the fact that Black women were not free, the men were. Just like white men, when Black men were freed, they then had master legal status over their wives because the second that Black women were declared free from chattel slavery, they fell under the doctrine of coverture slavery, just like all other women. When Sojourner Truth says "“You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us," she is not speaking metaphorically, she is speaking literally. Black men controlled all the legal rights of their wives. It's my understanding that attributable facts do not even require a RS to be stated, if they are relevant to the page's topic.

My concern is that if editors do not have the proper subtext to understand an edit, then they will make decisions based on their faulty subtext.

How is the coverture slavery status of girls and married Black women not relevant on its face to a page discussing a holiday celebrating a change in the chattel slave status of Black people? Legally, Black men went from chattel slavery to "freedman" and Black women went from chattel slavery to coverture slavery when they married and 75% of all Black women in 1870 were married by the age of 24.

The Juneteenth article makes the claim that all Black people went from a state of slavery to a state of emancipation, when they factually did not. That's a lack of neutrality.

Now, back to connecting all that to Juneteenth. Even though I think a discussion of coverture is on its face relevant to the topic of the article I also found a source connecting the two. Because this article is not just about Juneteenth. It also discusses how Juneteenth is celebrated/observed. I did find a source that makes the connection between Juneteenth celebrations and coverture. The source that says that Black women leaders fought for their rights as "humans" meaning to be free of chattel slavery with along with Black men, and also for their rights as "women," meaning to be free from coverture slavery. And for their rights as "citizens" meaning able to vote. The fact that the quote I used says these leaders fought for recognition as "women" and as "citizens" means that the person making that statement does not see the two things as the same. They were separate legal struggles.

The irony here is that we spent so much time during the Women's Suffrage Centennial celebrations discussing how Jim Crow laws prevented Black women from voting, mass media did not cover the law with regard to coverture slavery and why women wanted the vote in the first place--as a way to address coverture. We discussed race, but not sex. Here we are again discussing race and not sex. It's an underlying bias lacking in neutrality.

Question: is a master's degree thesis from a major university considered a reputable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmorLucis ( talk • contribs)

Regarding the Master's degree question, the answer is no. Wikipedia is built primarily on WP:SECONDARY sources published outside of Wikipedia. Nobody is allowed to publish new analysis on Wikipedia. A few PhDs have tried to do so and have gotten banned. Binksternet ( talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: the entire edit has now been removed. Even the part talking about how Juneteenth celebrations honor African-American women's rights leader. Which they do. And which I sourced. AmorLucis ( talk) 19:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. The wiki article on Black Matriarchy uses a masters thesis as a source. The relevant text is:

"The father in the family structure is the foundation of that family system. The father should provide stability to the family which keeps the family in order and functioning."

And the citation is a master's thesis. In the master's thesis itself, the author provides no primary sources for this statement. Is that an error of editing that should be removed? AmorLucis ( talk) 19:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's best to refer directly to policy rather than assume than any given article is a good example of what another article ought to look like (particularly one that is also flagged as having issues). At a glance I see that that article is also using an opinion piece as a source, which is also normally avoided. Wikipedia is very much a work in progress, and there are many articles that are not up to par. If you would like to review the relevant portion of policy on theses and their status as a reliable source, you can read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 19:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not reviewed your edits in detail, merely spot checking them and some of your sources, so I had not paid attention to your writing about coverture. The description of a discussion about disenfranchisement was more of a case in point than a specific discussion of your edits. The hypothetical example about Norse mythology I provided and the warnings about how to structure and source your edits were the more important parts.

And no, we would generally no consider a Master's thesis to be a reliable source, unless it was widely cited by more reliable sources itself. If you find one being used elsewhere, then that's an issue that should be adressed at that article's talk page, not a precedent for following suite elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to know if there is a connection from Juneteenth to coverture if editors are only "spot checking" my sources? That's my point. If you aren't familiar with coverture, then you wouldn't see that my source is referring to coverture. I did read your example on Norse mythology and I tried to show you that my sources do connect Juneteenth to coverture.

For example, imagine an article on Veteran's Day that framed war as a fun party for soldiers. And you thought that was an implicit bias because it's not the experience of all soldiers. So you found a RS saying "Our celebration of Veteran's Day this year is honoring all the people who fought for the humanity of soldiers" and then the person went on to list a number of people active in the Veteran PTSD healing movement by name. That source connects Veteran's Day celebrations to PTSD. Then the edit goes on give basic context on what PTSD is and then goes on to quote some of the very same people mentioned in the RS on the subject of PTSD.

Now imagine that 95% of Wikipedia editors were not familiar with PTSD, let alone with the PTSD healing movement or its leaders. And they took a quick look at your source, only read "humanity of soldiers" and determined, "I'm not seeing the connection here between Veteran's Day celebrations and PTSD." So the edit was removed as an "off topic" "coatrack" issue.

That would result in a very biased Wikipedia article and would also be incredibly disrespectful to veterans.

The Juneteenth article literally uses the word "Freedmen" three times. That word was specifically used at that time because the legal status of Black men was different than the legal status of Black women. Which is a fact of history. Black men went from chattel slavery to the status of "Freedman." Black girls and married women went from chattel slavery to coverture slavery. When Sojourner Truth said, “You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us,” she was not speaking metaphorically, she was speaking literally.

The question remains the same. Are articles written with an implicit bias (like this one is) a lack of neutrality for which Wikipedia has a responsibility to correct with attributable historical facts? Or is it the responsibility of outside sources to correct that implicit bias? And I did find and outside source correcting that implicit bias! And it's only being given a "cursory" glance by editors that strongly suggests a lack of subtext to make and informed decision. And my pointing out that lack of subtext in the editors is getting me labeled as "abusive." It's truly Orwellian, in my view.

Further, if editors are not aware of the implicit bias in an article or willing to acknowledge it, are they qualified to make editing decisions on whether and/or how to correct it?

Even more troubling...

Then imagine that the person making this change was labeled "callous" and "illogical" and "politically motivated" and wanting to "Right Great Wrongs." And when the same person suggested that maybe there was a lack of subtext on the part of editors about PTSD to correctly assess the citation's relevance, they were labeled as the one being "abusive" and "questioning motive" and "wasting everyone's time."

There is so much research on how Wikipedia has an implicit male bias. So multiple editors not seeing the implicit bias in this article is not necessarily evidence that it's not there. It could be evidence of systemic bias in the worldview of the majority of Wiki editors, that then creates an echo chamber because people who call it out are labeled as troublemaker. In other words:

In an insane world, the sane are insane.

Which, again, all this is ironic on a Juneteenth page, because racist White people do all that to Black people when Black people try to educate them on what they don't know they don't know.

AmorLucis ( talk) 20:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a bias on WP but an external systematic bias in the sources that we depend on if no reliable source has discussed the issue of Juneteenth and specific issues surrounding African-American women. Particularly in an area like this, we are very much dependent on external sources to provide the foundational background and importance for us to be able to include so that we are not introducing original research; Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of novel ideas, which based on the lack of any sources that I can seem to find (specifically, linking the issues of coverture to Juneteenth), is what you want us to do.

Now, as the specific topic of coverture related to African-American women, ignoring any connection to Juneteenth, Google School shows a potential wealth of sources that you could use to specifically talk about this point at the coverture page, where it would absolutely appropriate. There's no righting great wrongs there - its a subject of scholarly discussion for that specific racial group. It's just tying the assumption that Juneteenth relates to emancipation from coverture for African-American women is where your argument falls apart without any sourcing to back that. -- Masem ( t) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Look, virtually everyone at Wikipedia is a volunteer. Most folks are going to skip right by lengthy replies, especially without sources or diffs or edit suggestions. We're also not experts in every subject—nor do we need to be, since our purpose is to summarize the clear and unambiguous conclusions of reliable sources. You'll get more help if you can link to a source, quote a sentence or two if necessary, and say why it's relevant for this noticeboard. If you say There's a source in the first paragraph, nobody's going to dig through that paragraph. And if we need to infer a claim from a source because it doesn't clearly state it, then that's original research as well. I think that most editors here agree with your general premise (or are open to it, at least), but we need to see reliable sources that spell everything out and connect the dots. Woodroar ( talk) 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Challenge accepted (smiley face).

Here are direct quotes from my source connecting Juneteenth to coverture:

Talking about the advocacy of Black women leaders AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation/Juneteenth:

"Black suffragists, including Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Ida B. Wells and countless others continued to agitate.."

"those suffragists who more than 100 years ago fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens."

(emphasis mine)

Editors conclude that my RS of a Juneteenth celebration honoring the struggles of Black suffragists to be recognized as "humans," "women" and "citizens" does not suggest coverture. It does for two reasons.

1) "Women" and "citizens" refers to two distinctly different legal states (if they didn't the speaker would not have to use two different words) and

2) The list of Black suffragists she is referring to by name gives additional context that what the person is talking about is coverture, because those women clearly spoke out against coverture specifically, and they wrote and spoke on the nuances of those different legal states.

I immediately saw the connection to coverture when I read that.

Having said that. The second issue here is intersectionality on Wikipedia that only goes one way. Regarding the suggestion to add info about Black women and coverture on the coverture page (and elsewhere people have suggested that I add it to the chattel slavery page)...

Under that logic, discussions of Black women and Jim Crow laws should only be on the Jim Crow page. But they're not. They're on the page about the 19th Amendment, which had nothing to do with race. The 19th Amendment was only about sex discrimination. But it's there because outside sources said "Hey there's a relevant connection to women's suffrage and Jim Crow!"

And I maintain that I found a RS that said "Hey there's a relevant connection between Juneteenth and coverture!" And so it should go in the Juneteenth article.

Also, it's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Coverture can and should be on a whole bunch of pages and there's time enough for those edits. But, right how, the discussion is about putting it on the Juneteenth article.

AmorLucis ( talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem you are creating is that you're looking at articles that talk about problems that affect the entire African-American community (male + female) such as both Juneteenth and Jim Crow laws, and want to force in a female-specific perspective about that specific topic that has no direct support in reliable sources. Instead, you're using what we call synthesis to say "well, these sources which have no direct connection to these topics discuss the plight of African-American females, but because this is marginally related, we need to include that information." which is not how WP works. We are looking for reliable sources that directly address the connection between Juneteenth or Jim Crow laws, and the issues of African-American women, not some tangent that requires a bunch of logical loops to jump through to make the connection. While the sources you have speak to ending coverture as a means of emancipation, it is not placed anywhere in the same terms of importance of Juneteenth or Jim Crow laws on the entire body of African-American people. But that's why I said there are more appropriate topics that are appropriately more focused for this type of coverage; eg coverture seems like an excellent place to build out something there, and the term "Jane Crow" judging from Google Scholar hits seems ripe for its own article (presently only a short para in Pauli Murray). Basically, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when there are square holes very suitable for this to be used from the start. -- Masem ( t) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"While the sources you have speak to ending coverture as a means of emancipation, it is not placed anywhere in the same terms of importance of Juneteenth or Jim Crow laws on the entire body of African-American people."

You just said that talking about racial discrimination is more important to the African-American people than talking about sex discrimination. That is literally saying that the experience of Black men is more important than the experience of Black women.

I started off observing that Wikipedia lacks intersectionality consistency across articles and nearly every response I'm getting across the board throughout this discussion on that page and this one is just making me more sure of it. But if you say that out loud, you're violating talk standards and/or will be blocked.

And so an echo chamber was born...

It's a simple A to B here:

Juneteenth is about Black people. Which means it's about Black women, too.

Coverture is about women. Which means it's about Black women, too.

The Juneteenth article talks about how people commemorate Juneteenth.

I found a source that says Juneteenth commemorations honor Black women who fought against coverture.

I made an edit about that.

A to B.

And all the talk suggesting to move this to another page is, in effect, excluding Black women's experience from the Juneteenth page, past and present. That's an intersectionality inconsistency. Because other Wiki articles on women's history include a race analysis and here a discussion of Black history that includes a sex analysis is seen as "off topic."

AmorLucis ( talk) 02:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The intersectionality logic fails if there are no sources that direct that intersectionality directly. Period. And that may be because that reliable source may not see the need to take a topic like Juneteenth - which definitely deals across the board for all African-Americans - and dissect any further importance to gender or other possible categorizations within that larger group. And even if you found one source (and there's questions about its usability), we also then have to consider if that's of due weight to include. One single source, even if it were reliable to give that viewpoint, wouldn't be appropriate to make that inclusion. -- Masem ( t) 03:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're representing my position accurately. There are three issues here:

1) Is an article that talks about "emancipation" and "freedmen" inherently biased, because it assumes the history of Black males as the default condition for all Black people? I say it is. I say that the actual experience of Black women in an article about Black people is not original research. It's correcting an implicit bias. And the addition of the legal status of Black women brings the article to a place of neutrality. In other words, I'm saying that intersectional perspectives are necessary for an article to be neutral.

But let's say you don't agree, you think the article (defaulting to the legal status of Black men as the status for all when it wasn't) is neutral as is and adding the experience of Black women is original research. That kicks us to issue number two.

2) Articles on women's history include the different history of Black women vs White women because of their race. That intersectional analysis has already been established as "relevant" to the topic by Wikipedia. So, not seeing it as relevant here is a double standard in Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia is saying "race is relevant to women's history" but "sex is not relevant to Black history."

Once it's relevant, then I don't think the number of sources matter. However, one could argue that any Juneteenth celebration that honors the legacy of Sojourner Truth is commemorating the struggle against coverture, because she stated that very clearly in her advocacy. So, there are lots of sources connecting Juneteenth to coverture through Sojourner Truth (and others). If the editors could see that connection, they'd see that there are countless Juneteenth celebrations that acknowledge the struggle against coverture when they honor and teach about Sojourner Truth's work, which most Juneteenth observances do.

3) I am getting pushback that shows clear implicit bias on the part of editors regarding their understanding of intersectionality and coverture (the latest talk on the talk page is trying to say that laws passed in 1840 ended coverture, which shows a real lack of understanding of the history of coverture by editors). But, under Wikipedia standards, I can't talk about that. They can express their implicit bias, but when I point it out, I'm being "abusive," violating standards and threatened with being blocked as an editor. Woah. Even more troubling is the overt accusations of lack of good faith and more on my part by other editors. The conversation became about me and not about the edit. And even worse than that, an Admin defended their actions as appropriate, even though they clearly violate talk page standards (I can provide specifics, but I don't think that's appropriate here and this is already a long post).

All three issues are about whether or not the implicit bias is the problem or if the problem is pointing out the implicit bias and fixing it with intersectional commentary.

In this case, both my edit pointing out bias in the article and me pointing out bias in editors are being labeled as having no merit and, worse, grounds for being blocked. If this forum is about maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality/legitimacy/integrity, these are serious problems that need to be addressed.

Wikipedia has an intersectionality inconsistency problem in the articles and in the editors that's impeding Wikipedia's neutrality.

AmorLucis ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comments are very long and many editors (myself included) won't read them past the first few sentences. I strongly suggest you try very hard to be less verbose. See WP:TLDR and WP:WALLOFTEXT for more guidance.

Many of us want to help you here, but we need to be able to discuss specifics, and we need to be able to have a discussion which is easy to follow, all of which means discussing one aspect at a time. So for starters, can you provide the source which you earlier claimed was in the first paragraph, which explicitly discussed the experiences of Black women in the context of Juneteenth? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that AmorLucis has a very weak understanding of the scholarly sources on coverture--which was practically defunct by 1850s, especially in the South. He is not convincing because he cites Wikipedia too often and scholarly sources too rarely. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court said about coverture in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015: "Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned. " Lots of historians have written how coverture decayed as traditional English common law was replaced by state laws-especially Henry Hartog Man and Wife in America: A History (2002) and Nancy Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000). Cott says that "state legislatures’ flurry of activity in passing laws on divorce and married women’s property showed their hand: marriage was their political creation" p 54; and "the doctrine of coverture was being unseated in social thought and substantially defeated in the law." p. 157. AmorLucis assumed that when slavery ended that the courts in the South suddenly applied 18th century English law to freed slaves--no scholar says this. He ignores the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that gave equal citizenship to black women. He cites zero court cases. He cites zero scholars that use court cases. Rjensen ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think AmorLucis is really approaching this from a historical perspective, but rather from the perspective of intersectional feminism, which is a perfectly valid approach, though not one as well-suited to WP's norms as history would be.

I saw their use of the term coverture as less a reference to the actual legal theory, and more a shorthand for the same societal views that gave rise to the legal theory. I know that's a confusing use of the term, but in the modern day, when everyone's an expert on the internet, it behooves us to consider what a person is trying to say, rather than taking their every use of a term of art at face value.

But, even taking that into account, the problem of not providing sources, not directly addressing the advice I and others have offered, and typing long-winded comments complaining about the very difficulties we're trying to help them overcome is entirely unhelpful.

AmorLucis, I strongly urge you to refer to my comment above and share a link to a source that discusses the issue of coverture (or more broadly, of Black women's legal and social rights), so that we can examine that, instead of complaining about editors you believe are biased. If you feel this thread has gotten too heated, you may do so at my talk page. I assure you that I, and the vast majority of editors who watch my talk page would be willing to help, if only you will help us to help you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ AmorLucis, I can't remember if the reply-link tool is automatically enabled; go to Preferences>Editing and scroll down, then check the "Enable quick replying" box. This puts a little [reply] link next to posts on talk pages. Just click that and save to get your replies indented correctly, which helps others follow the convo. Also please be brief and stay on topic. We really don't need to be told about WP's bias over and over; we get it, we would like to fix it too, and these tangents aren't helping with your primary goal here.

You are saying:

• Juneteenth is about Black people. Which means it's about Black women, too.
• Coverture is about women. Which means it's about Black women, too.
• The Juneteenth article talks about how people commemorate Juneteenth.
• I found a source that says Juneteenth commemorations honor Black women who fought against coverture.

The first three don't matter unless you can find someone somewhere connecting them. To do that, all you need is that last one. What source is that, can you give us a link and a quote? —valereee ( talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Valereee:,

My sources connecting Juneteenth celebrations to Black women leaders who fought against coverture include:

^[1]

The Chisholm Leadership Academy is a Black civic organization with an impressive Board of Black civic leaders from politics/media, etc. The article is titled "Celebrating Juneteenth" and focuses on "The Women of the Movement," then references Sojourner Truth by name, then references "Her most famous address, given in 1851 at the Women’s Rights Conference in Akron, Ohio, challenged prevailing ideas about racial and gender inferiority."

and ^[2]

This article, titled "Tallahassee group celebrates outstanding women this Juneteenth," celebrates

"Black suffragists who also consistently agitated for their citizenship to be recognized. But because of their race, their fight for full citizenship had to include recognition of their womanhood as well." and

"After the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments — ending slavery, granting citizenship to all persons born in the United States and granting Black men the right to vote (however, poorly protected). Still, Black suffragists, including Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Ida B. Wells and countless others continued to agitate— organizing marches, creating suffrage clubs, hosting conventions and fundraising —all to advance the dual causes of women’s suffrage and recognition of Black women as women, too." and

"suffragists who more than 100 years ago fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens."

My original edit also had seven other sources connecting Juneteenth to celebrating Black women leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Ida B. Wells, and Pauli Murray--all of whom specifically spoke out against common law coverture.

I am saying three things:

• People celebrate Black women leaders who fought against coverture during Juneteenth celebrations, so it is appropriate to add that in the section about how people celebrate Juneteenth. Advocating "for" women's rights was advocating "against" coverture. The Black women leaders were very explicit about that in their speeches. It's like saying that Black people who fought "for" Civil Rights were fighting "against" Jim Crow laws. Same thing.

• The article already discusses "female-centric" Juneteenth celebrations when it references "Miss Juneteenth" pageants, which only Black women participate in. Yet, including Juneteenth celebrations that honor Black women leaders who fought for women's rights is being reverted for being "too female-centric."

• As it stands, the Juneteenth article already references "coverture" when it uses the word "Freedmen" three times. That language, at the time, referred to Black men because, legally, Black women had no identity, because of coverture. It's not like using the word "mankind" to mean all of humanity. Circa 1860s, the word "Freedmen" meant Freedmen. Therefore, this article lacks neutrality. In order be neutral, the legal position of Black women at the time of emancipation must also be included. People are hearing that inclusion as "adding a feminist bias that is original research." It's not. It's establishing neutrality in an article that is currently not neutral, because it assumes that the legal position of Black men was the legal position for all Black people. It wasn't.

"Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful." - Wikipedia AmorLucis ( talk) 21:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two things against these sources for inclusion of what you want. First and the bigger issue is that two sources among everything else in the Juneteenth article starts getting into the WP:UNDUE aspects - if only these two sources have made a connection of Juneteenth and emancipation of black women, that might be inappropriate to add given how much other aspects are covered. The second problem is the quality of the sourcing. The first from Chisholm Leadership Academy is from a group with unclear reliability and so we'd have to be very careful with that. The second, while it does appear to be from the Tallahassee Democrat, has bylines and statements that make it appear as a statement from Della Walker Chapter #86, and not an independent piece written by a Democrat journalist. Eg it would be like an op-ed piece, which again we can't really use for reliability. So the sourcing here is not very strong to uphold this. Even as written, I don't see that piece trying to establish that Juneteenth was meant to celebrate the emacipation of black woman from coverture, but simply using that year's Juneteenth celebration to feature black woman that continued to fight for equality. It lacks the ties that you are wanting to see.

The only thing about a pageant I see in the article is the allusion to the film Miss Juneteenth, showing how the term has percolated into the popular culture. That's not what you think you described above. It's also still original research to say that "coverture" is discussed because "Freedman" is mentioned. Yes, it is a 1860s term and it likely predominately referred to men only, but that was the culture in 1860, and the term is only used in its historical context. Today, its clear that the Juneteenth applies universally to all black persons in the US, not singling out men or women or any other segment of this population. So trying to argue "well, we talk about freed men, but nothing about freed women means that there's still the topic of coverture being discussed in the article and thus we must include how black women were emancipated from that" is a huge stretch of original research and logic that we cannot use. I think that this point, where you are arguing that the article's not neutral because of this few mentions of "freedman" is a flaw in the logic you want, because everywhere else in Juneteenth, particularly its contemporary coverage, is basically gender neutral, and that's appropriate. -- Masem ( t) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem just made the statement: "The only thing about a pageant I see in the article is the allusion to the film Miss Juneteenth,"

Two separate quotes from the WP Juneteenth article:

"Some Juneteenth celebrations also include rodeos, street fairs, cookouts, family reunions, park parties, historical reenactments, and Miss Juneteenth contests."

"Celebrations include picnics, rodeos, street fairs, cookouts, family reunions, park parties, historical reenactments, blues festivals and Miss Juneteenth contests."

(emphasis mine)

There must be a record number of straw arguments being attributed to me throughout this debate. Good faith debate requires responding to the nuanced arguments that I am actually making without paraphrasing them in a way that dilutes them. I did not state or imply "well, we talk about Freed man, so we need to talk about Freed women." I stated that the article already references coverture when it quotes the proclamations of the time that referred to "Freedmen." That references coverture. 100% absolutely. There is no "leap of logic," only a "fact of history." I said that we are talking about Freedman like what was true for them was true for everybody. It wasn't.

Civil Rights was/is a fight against Jim Crow. Women's rights was/is a fight against coverture. Period.

AmorLucis ( talk) 21:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I missed those parts about the Miss Juneteenth contests (I was searching on pageants), but that said, just because there are pageants or contests for women only does not mean there's a neutrality problem involved here. But you're still making a leap of logic that because "Freedman" is mentioned in historic terms, that the article is indirectly talking about coverture. That's snythesis by making a specific assumption. I fully recognize there is a logical thread from "Freedman" to the coverture concept, but for Wikipedia, that thread needs reliable sourcing to be able to include. -- Masem ( t) 22:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

And to add, those two sources you provide, even if reliable, do not provide the steps in that logical thread to go from "this article talks about Freedmen" to "This article is also about coverture". -- Masem ( t) 22:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem You state: "just because there are pageants or contests for women only does not mean there's a neutrality problem involved here." You are yet again, mixing apples and oranges and misquoting my arguments to make me appear wrong. Again, please stop doing that. If editors are going to keep misinterpreting me, I'm going to have to keep writing walls of text to set the record straight.

There are two issues here, the legal status of Black men vs. Black women (the article as it stands is not neutral on that issue) AND Juneteenth celebrations. Including Black women's legal status at the time of Emancipation is not original research. It's basic history.

I find it incredulous that editors are trying to say that what Sojourner Truth spoke about coverture at the time is not relevant, when countless Juneteenth reading lists, commemorations, celebrations, statues, etc. honor Sojourner Truth in memory of Juneteenth, specifically her fight for women's rights, which is the same thing as the fight against coverture. Sojourner Truth specifically spoke out about coverture.

This conversation will soon become moot, because I am working with RS right now to create the bulletproof citations editors seem to be demanding for this edit. You can delay this edit, but you can't prevent it. It will happen eventually. And you are now the third editor who has admitted to making a false assessment in this debate by either misreading the article and/or my sources.

FYI, there is not consensus that these sources don't establish a connection. There are editors willing to back these sources. However, after my experience with being gaslit with personal attacks and straw arguments and being further gaslit by being blocked for setting boundaries against that, and editors making false statements to discredit this edit, I am not willing to resubmit this edit until it is airtight and irrefutable with backing by other editors. Which will happen.

This debate was not about "sources." Multiple editors explicitly said, out loud, their politically motivated reasons for rejecting this edit. Which the RS I am working with found very eye-opening to read.

AmorLucis ( talk) 02:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To stress again: the issue you have is that you don't have the sourcing right now that makes it a significant point that Juneteenth also should be meant to celebrate the emancipation of black woman from coverture, in addition to the emancipation of all black people. I can find articles like NYTimes and The Atlantic all have articles that on or near Juneteenth spent time to talk about important black women as part of the overall emancipation of black people, but speak none at all about coverture or the specific plight of black women, and that's the logical step that's missing here for inclusion without more sources to back it up. Just because we can link people like Truth to Juneteenth doesn't mean coverture is also linked to Juneteenth. That's why all of this is 100% about the sources that explicitly connect Juneteenth to coverture. Not half steps (like linking Juneteenth to S. Truth, and then a separate source linking S. Truth to coveture), but in the same source that explicitly states that. This sourcing is the fundamental issue - it is absolutely not politically motivated as you claim as I see no one here nor at the Juneteenth talk page even suggesting this. -- Masem ( t) 04:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem First, please stop conflating my two arguments to make them appear wrong. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that, but you just did it again. "Juneteenth also should be meant to celebrate the emancipation of black woman from coverture" Who said that? Not me.

Second, THANK YOU for admitting that sources connect Juneteenth celebrations to Black women leaders. Can you please explain, then why THIS edit was removed as a "coatrack" issue for quote "putting too much emphasis on the topic of feminism?"

"Honoring African-American women’s rights leaders in Juneteenth Celebrations

Juneteenth commemorations,[72][73][74] recommended reading lists, [75] [76][77] and documentaries screened as part of Juneteenth celebrations [78][79] honor the unique contributions of African-American women leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, Francis Harper, Pauli Murray [80] and “countless others” who “fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens.”[81]"

Beauty pageants, check. Honoring Black women leaders? "too much feminism."

You state: "it is absolutely not politically motivated as you claim as I see no one here nor at the Juneteenth talk page even suggesting this"

YES, several editors have expressed, out loud, that women's perspectives do not belong in this article.

From the Juneteenth talk page:

"it is terrible injustice to attempt to dilute ending chattel slavery, as chattel slavery was a particularly unjust racist system"

"It would be morally, ethically, and academically wrong to include it."

"the false equivalence of other systems with chattel slavery is used by racists to deny the terrible system of chattel slavery, and its generational effects, by making the argument that whites too (here women) are/were in slavery."

Including Black women leader's advocacy for women's rights "leads to the perverse proposition that it was somehow liberation that racist laws of chattel slavery barred enslaved women from marriage."

"Racism is explicit in your ascribing to "African American men" and "African American women" what Juneteenth means to African American women and men." (one of many explicit personal attacks on my character)

and from the Teahouse forum

"If you put the male versus female bit into what should be an article commemorating emancipation, it waters down and weakens a historic and incredibly important thing:"

These arguments are not about sources, but about people's belief that it's inappropriate to include Black women's unique perspective as part of Black history because it dilutes that history. The Columbus Day and Thanksgiving Day articles include Native American perspectives. The 19th Amendment article includes race perspectives. It is only women who are being treated as a coatrack issue. Editors do not even want to include that Juneteenth honors women leaders who spoke out for women's rights.

There is a clear double standard on Wikipedia about intersectionality only going one way. There is no reason why the above edit should have been removed. It was sourced, it was relevant. The editors did not even want to negotiate on this edit. They wanted no Black women leaders in the Juneteenth article at all. And the reasons were explicitly stated and not about sources.

Add to that the editors who tried to misrepresent what coverture was by quoting what academics said about coverture in the 20th century, not the 19th century.

If you honor Sojourner Truth's life and legacy (as many Juneteenth celebrations do), you honor her advocacy against coverture. Period. We don't get to cherry pick what part of a woman's voice is relevant. That's incredibly disrespectful to the Black women leaders of history.

AmorLucis ( talk) 13:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No one (in either location) has made a personal attack against you or your character. All discussion have been based on your arguments of why this topic should be included and/or the fallacy of that inclusion, and that's expected for talk page arguments. I know we're talking issues along the lines of racism and gender issues and one might see complaints about those topics and take them personably, but you have not been personally attacked at all here.

Second, all these arguments mostly come down to the lack of strong, thorough reliable sourcing. As I've said before, without multiple reliable sources that explicit connect Juneteenth to coverture, trying to force its inclusion is an WP:UNDUE issue and otherwise original research, and nearly all the replies you quote above are variants of that argument. As a counter argument, lets take the example you give about the 19th Amendment related to women's right to vote, and the section on African-American women. The reason we can actually include that is that there multiple RSes that discuss that the 19th Amendment did not effectively help this group due to state-level laws until the 1950s. That's the type of sourcing that helps make the information no long original research and meet the requirements to be DUE in the article. Keeping this in mind for Juneteenth, which is clearly meant as a celebration of the end of slavery and the emancipation of all American black people regardless of gender, that would meant that treating any subclass of that group with their own section/carveout is going to need this type of deep quality sourcing.

And again, these sources have to be explicit. I looked for sources on Sojourner Truth in relation to Juneteenth and she was frequently named as a key female figure, but none of the RSes that even brought her to light on Juneteenth tied her to coverture. That's the type of concern that your logic here is faltering, you simply don't have these explicit connection that you're insisting exists. You argue "well the Juneteenth article includes beauty contests so its talking about female-specific things, why can't we talk about coverture more?" You have to consider the context. The part about the pageants is just one small aspect of types of events used to celebrate Juneteenth, its not a whole carve-out about the female side of the event. Again, that's an UNDUE expectation you're asking for. Maybe you are not exactly saying "Juneteenth also should be meant to celebrate the emancipation of black woman from coverture", but this is exactly the logic you want us to accept to include more content on the Juneteenth article about coverture, from everything you've written, and that's just not something I'm seeing at all supported by any source. -- Masem ( t) 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we have (in less than 20 words) a simple summary of what this Is about? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The legal status of Black men and Black women was vastly different after Emancipation.

Juneteenth celebrations honor Black women leaders of history who spoke about that difference.

AmorLucis ( talk) 15:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"The legal status of Black men and Black women was vastly different after Emancipation", I am not sure we do not already say that. After all, they were no longer slaves. As to "Juneteenth celebrations honor Black women leaders of history who spoke about that difference." Again I am unsure we do not by implication say this already, as (again) it is about commemorating the emancipation of African-American slaves (all of them not just men). So we go back to what everyone here has been saying. We need some very good sources making a clear difference between men and women over this celebration, we need to see this is (in effect) a separate issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The legal status of Black men and Black women was vastly different from each other. No, the article does not already say that. Anywhere. And, no, we don't go back to what everyone here has been saying. Any source that honors Sojourner Truth's legacy in the context of Juneteenth references that clear difference. And I provided one source that explicitly discusses that difference in the context of Juneteenth, which some editors accepted and some rejected.

AmorLucis ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, this article is not about emancipation it is about Juneteenth, your point seems to be about emancipation, not Juneteenth. The correct place to talk about differences in Emancipation is here Emancipation or Emancipation Proclamation. This is about the holiday, this would be no more relevant than including the easter uprising in the article about Easter. And no "Any source that honors Sojourner Truth's legacy in the context of Juneteenth references that clear difference.", they have to identify and say there was a difference (you can't infer it), they have to say that women were treated different as part of this celebration. Do they? I have seen nothing that says they say this, again provide one quote that says that women did not participate in or were critical of Juneteenth, not emancipation, Juneteenth. As an example, has three been any feminist criticism of Miss Juneteenth, that we could add as it directly related to how the holiday is celebrated? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Wikipedia thinks men's history is "history." And that being inconsistent across Wiki articles is ok. This article describes the history that Juneteenth is commemorating. This article references Emancipation, Juneteenth and the 13th Amendment. Not including the difference for Black women is an inherent bias. This article also describes how Juneteenth is celebrated. Yes, when an article on Juneteenth references Truth's speeches on women's rights (as my source does), that source is explicitly celebrating Juneteenth by explicitly identifying that difference between Black men and Black women. Your "Easter" analogy is not parallel to this discussion. Again, we talk about differences in history in other holiday articles (Thanksgiving Day and Columbus Day). Under your logic, we would need to take out the references in those Wiki articles to Native American history, because they don't belong in an article on holidays. AmorLucis ( talk) 16:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No, No it does not, you have been asked to read wp:v it has to say it in a way that I can see it, so proved the quote where it say it. And give an example of a source ewwe use for Thanksgiving Day or Columbus Day day and natives that is not about Thanksgiving Day or Columbus Day and natives? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And lay off the assumptions of bad faith, I have already told you what to look for. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So...pointing out logical fallacies and double standards is considered "assuming bad faith?" As I said, other editors "can see it." There is no consensus that these sources do not make the connection. Slatersteven I really don't think further discussion between us or even with other ditors on this page will be productive. As I said, I am working with other objective editors and outside sources on making this edit bulletproof to get over the double standard hurdles being applied to it. It's not a question of "if" this will be included. It's a question of "when." AmorLucis ( talk) 16:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying "Wikipedia thinks men's history is "history."" in response to what Slatersteven replied to you is the assumption of bad faith, because that wasn't anything what they said. We're trying to help you figure out what you need to include what you want, but it all comes down to sourcing, and while you say you are looking for more, I've also looked and just haven't found anything myself. If you do find more great, but really there's no much more that can be advised here to help you until you get a good quantity of reliable sources that explicitly connect Juneteenth to coverture or the emancipation of black women. -- Masem ( t) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are not logical fallacies, they are policies. wp:v, and as far as I can see there is consensus they do not meet this. Nor is there a double standard, we apply this to all articles. Keep on with the bad faith and you will get another block, please stop. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem "No one (in either location) has made a personal attack against you or your character."

"Callous" "racist" wanting to "Right Great Wrongs" wanting to "get the answer you want." These aren't considered personal attacks? Really.

"well the Juneteenth article includes beauty contests so its talking about female-specific things, why can't we talk about coverture more?" Please stop misrepresenting my views. It just makes it look like my arguments must be strong if you have to pervert them to make them wrong. This article assumes men's history is "history." That's a fact. If that a statement of bad faith, then the bad faith is in the article, not in my pointing it out. AmorLucis ( talk) 16:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Juneteenth archives [1] and those are not personal attacks. They are not describing you as an contributor, they are describing your contributions. I will say that the editor there, @ Alanscottwalker: is perhaps a bit strongly worded, but none of their replies to you fall into the WP:NPA category; they're all about your logic and arguments and the faults of those. -- Masem ( t) 16:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, as to the bad faith issue, you're making the assumption that Wikipedia editors have chosen purposely to eliminate any viewpoints about black women and Juneteenth. But as I read through the archives on that page and here, the issue is that reliable sources do not routinely make any distinction about black women specifically around Juneteenth - people like S. Truth and others are frequently named alongside black men as key people that led to the federal recognition of Juneteenth and related events, but they do not distinction call out the importance of black women alone. And because reliable sources don't go there, WP also cannot go there. That's not WP choosing to make history only be the male history, as you are claiming. That's just how WP works - we have to summarize the sources, which nearly all recognize Juneteenth as a day for celebration for black people - both men and women alike. That's again why we are stressing you need to find explicit sourcing for what you want to include rather than calling out bad faith on WP's part. Many have offered this advice and you're seemingly fighting against it, though you say you are looking for sources now. -- Masem ( t) 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Again we go back to Miss Juneteenth, if there were major feminists' concerns this is where they would be manifest, calling this paggent out as sexist. Here is where we can start with a concrete proposal "And Miss Junteetnth has been criticized as perpetuating...Ect", are there any RS (not sources, wp:rs) saying anything like this? We are trying to help you make the changes you want, but in a way that accords with Wikipedia's standards. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close this discussion

I think it's time to admit that this section is unproductive. In terms of raw size, this is the largest section this noticeboard has seen in months. Without assigning blame, it's fair to describe the discourse here as uncivil. Early participants seem to have backed off and newer participants often repeat older points. This seems to me to be the kind of discussion that would be best located at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, with structured discussion and active moderation. I would be happy to be a participant in a case at DRN. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, it is going nowhere. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this has been going nowhere for a while now. If editors will stop misrepresenting my words to discredit my argument, then I can stop replying to correct the record and we can end this. I remain firmly convinced that this edit is relevant and has been sourced correctly for inclusion. And I am not the only editor who thinks so. We are going to have to agree to disagree. And, yes, calling a person's statements "racist" and "callous" is a personal attack on a person's character. Stating that a person is continuing to debate to "get the answer they want" is an attack on motive. Stating a person wants to "Right Great Wrongs" is talking about that PERSON, not their ARGUMENT. Denying that just reinforces the problematic issues with this debate. It seems like literally everything everyone else did here, no matter how rude, inappropriate or in bad faith was excused and everything I did was ridiculed, gaslit and misrepresented--and even blocked. I can see clearly what is happening here, as can other discerning readers. Editors do not even want to include that Juneteenth celebrations honor Black women leaders of history--specifically their struggle for equal rights. I have no words. Mostly because if I spoke them, I'd be blocked for being "disruptive." Now, go ahead and misquote me--again. I'm done engaging in a discussion that is twisting my words, repeatedly. It is not "uncivil" to set boundaries against straw arguments and double standards. Implying that reasonable boundaries are uncivil has been the problem here from the get go. AmorLucis ( talk) 09:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I won't continue any debates on the content matter, but I urge you to review WP:NPA to understand that no one has specifically spoken about you as an editor (and thus not made any personal attacks against you), only the aspects of your contributions. You may feel that because your reasoning to want to include this information is being dismissed for reasons along the lines of "racist", "callous" and "right great wrongs" that editors are attacking you, but that is clearly spelled out at NPA as not personal attacks if they are only discussing your contributions and not you as an editor. That you then assume editors are automatically working in bad faith against you and calling these out as personal attacks does not help your arguments. I realize you probably feel strongly about having this material in the article, but the stance that it is not suitable for the article at this time with the sourcing provided by multiple editors across the various discussion pages is not speaking ill of you as an editor, and you should not be taking it that way. -- Masem ( t) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Gadhimai festival (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate fresh eyes at (or advice about) Gadhimai festival. It's a month-long religious festival in Nepal, with ceremonies, food, etc. According to the article, two days are devoted to animal sacrifices, although that practice has been banned or severely curtailed. The article really tries to emphasize this, downplaying the sacrifice aspect and implying that it's a relic of the past. Except that's not how reliable sources like CNN, The BBC, The Week, The New York Times, The Independent, and The Guardian write about it. And those are just from two pages of Google search results. Search for "Gadhimai festival" and you'll find dozens of reliable sources covering the animal sacrifice viewpoint, that's it's ongoing, that it's controversial, that it's the world's largest ritual sacrifice, etc.
Discussion on the Talk page isn't going anywhere. Editors are characterizing these sources as activists with inflated numbers, published for shock value, and that local sources are preferred. They're also edit warring to retain outdated claims and unreliable sources like an animal rights organization, a 2002 book published by a tourist magazine, and sites like NotesNepal with no author or editorial details. If I'm wrong about this, I'll gladly back down. But it seems to me that the vast majority of contemporary reliable sources consider the animal sacrifice aspect important and ongoing and that our article should reflect that. Woodroar ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Article should be constructed based on RS (that is BBC, NYT, Guardian and the rest western media already mentioned) but also should "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" (per WP:YESPOV). animals24-7 and the 2002 book dont look even remotely RS, but notesNepal could be used (attributed). There is also this article [2], seems very interesting and is certainly the most reliable source of all- references are quite interesting also, the first one in particular Cinadon 36 06:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, thanks for that! I mostly agree, although I wonder if you see something in NotesNepal that I don't? They don't list any authors or editors, and their latest articles like Smart Sim Bonus on Recharge 4 times and Tata Nexon EV Price ni nepal and CG launched internet service at 120 Mbps for Rs 999 appear to be blatant advertisements. Their Facebook page says they're a web portal and hypes their tools: "Calender, Date Changer, Phone Codes list, Unicode text change, Loadshedding Schedules". I'm also not finding any other reliable sources citing them. Am I missing something? Woodroar ( talk) 14:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Woodroar: My suggestion was somewhat outside of WP policy, I know. My main concern is for WP not to be too much western-centric (see for example WP:GLOBAL Policy could be bend a little, so WP to host a popular opinion in Nepal, briefly, maybe adding a "better source needed". It help ends disputes that way and it is in ordinance with WP goal to host all significant opinions (but opinions from countries with few RS, are getting less attention). I am generally not for including non-RS, but this could be an exception (a sentence or two max). Cinadon 36 06:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Cinadon36: Among the sources removed by Woodroar, it includes publication by Oxford University Press, a great statistician (who is often cited by scholars as "good" source) and some others. The "2002 book" mentioned above, is about monuments, not tourism, and is written by an acclaimed academic [3] [4], well noted for his research about Nepal. Why these sources should not be restored? Shankargb ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, let's look at those sources:

• Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal is probably a good source and I'm not opposed to using it. But how it was used in the earlier version of the article is emblematic of the neutrality issues. Most of the mentions of "Gadhimai" are about sacrifice: how many animals were slaughtered, how there was crticism of those sacrifices, a quote from the main priest about how "The Devi asks for human blood" and "The goddess needs blood", etc. But the citation was about the history of the festival, again downplaying whenever possible the sacrifice aspect. In addition, that According to legends... sentence was a COPYVIO as it was taken almost verbatim from the book—meaning it should have been removed anyways. But as I said, I'm not opposed to using the book, but we should summarize what the book is actually about instead of cherry-picking a single sentence.
• Animals24-7 was found to be an unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites.
• Pilgrimage Tourism in Nepal was written by Ram Dayal Rakesh and published in 2002 by Safari Nepal, a tourism magazine which Rakesh edited. Tourism books tend not to be good sources because they're basically PR for a region or nation. But it really doesn't matter, because the basic claim that we used him to support—where and how often the festival takes place—is made by CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian, and probably dozens of unquestionably reliable sources.

So we've got a scholarly book that's primarily about the sacrifices and a tourism book that confirms some basic facts about the festival. Even if we decide to include them, that won't shift the balance of reliable sources, that animal sacrifice is a significant and controversial facet of the Gadhimai festival. Woodroar ( talk) 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Shankargb: Any OUP publication is RS, hands down. The 2002 book is not peer-reviewed, not everything a scholar says is RS. WP:SOURCES is clear: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications..." So, the question is: what is the reputation of the publisher? Is it a respected mainstream publication with a reputation for fact-checking? Cinadon 36 18:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Cinadon36 and Woodroar: OUP was correctly used for identifying a history-related passage. There is no indication that the publication has caused any mischief so far, and is a reputed publisher. As for the dependence on NYTimes, Guardian, etc. they all depend on activist claims and learned about the 100s-year-old festival only after 2009. They don't become most reliable with their apparent motive to provide a shock value than a sincere coverage of this event, especially when they passed a false claim that this is the "largest animal sacrifice" when it is easily dwarfed by other events like 10 million goats sacrificed in Pakistan alone during Eid and 45 million turkeys sacrificed in Thanksgiving in the US. Though "one of the largest" may sound better having supported by WSJ and Al-Jazeera. [5] [6] The statistics of animal sacrifices are provided by the activists should not be treated as fact per WP:NOADVOCACY, and since they have been disputed by a highly reputed statistician they should be attributed along with the one who disputed them. Right? Shankargb ( talk) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Shankargb:, not having caused any mischiefs is not enough, it has to be a reputed publisher (verifiable of course). As for NYT and the Guardian, see WP:RSPSOURCES. Have in mind that a biased source could be reliable, see WP:BIASED. Cinadon 36 19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Cinadon36: But those sources are using estimates provided by Animal Welfare Network Nepal (AWNN) to claim "250,000" animals sacrificed in 2009. Don't you think we should attribute it and avoid treating this festival as 'largest animal sacrificial event, given it is easily dwarfed by Eid, Thanksgiving, and probably others per WP:EXCEPTIONAL? If estimates by AWNN can be used then why Merritt Clifton's article that debunks those estimates cannot be used? Shankargb ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The "world's largest" claim isn't exceptional because it's supported by many reliable sources (per WP:RSP): "world’s largest animal sacrifice" by The Independent, "world’s bloodiest festival" by The Guardian, "largest mass-slaughter of animals on the planet" by CNN, "largest and bloodiest in the world" by Fox News, "world’s largest ritual slaughter" by The New York Times, "world’s biggest animal sacrifice" by Time, "world’s largest religious slaughter of animals" by NBC News, "world’s largest mass animal sacrifice" by The Washington Post, "world's largest ritual animal slaughter" by South China Morning Post, etc.

Animals24-7, however, has been found to be unreliable per this discussion at RSN. Ironically, it started covering Gadhimai after 2009 and it's clearly an activist/advocacy site, so according to your criteria we should ignore it as well, right? Woodroar ( talk) 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:EXCEPTIONAL because there is no official entry like Guinness World Records or having being assessed by a professional statistician. What you are citing are just western sources relying on statistics by AWNN (an inactive activist organization) to provide a shock value. They can't be treated as reliable for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim unless they address how Gadhimai is larger than Eid and Thanksgiving. If Animals-247 is problem then you can use this source instead. Do you really think that 6k animals sacrificed in 2019 during Gadhimai beats 9 million sacrificed in Bangladesh alone in Eid 2021 [7]? Shankargb ( talk) 04:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Shankargb: We should attribute in case there is another narrative that is equally supported by RS, but I do not think that is the case here. Cinadon 36 06:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 12:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Took a read-through. The one thing that jumped out at me was the title. Does he self-identify as an Islamist activist? If that's a characterization from opponents, just "Islamist" might be more neutral. Dhaluza ( talk) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be subject to biased editoring which includes:

1. Removal of each and every critical response & contents

2. Removal of BBC-referenced(and ignored) controversial content & discussion supporting to not-yet-consitutional political claims

To aviod biase (and controversial contents flooding the page), putting reference to another page that focuses on controversies seem to be a moderate solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepinata ( talk • contribs)

Thepinata, I don't see any discussion about this on the talk page for the article; that should be attempted first. Schazjmd  (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd Discussion regarding controversial content was in talk page, while discussions about parade was made in talk page of a different article [8]. Attempts were repeatedly made to remove controversial contents, previous to and during discussion (see history), which is why I totally agree with your statement. Thepinata ( talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Thepinata: discussion on one article talk page may establish consensus on what to do for that article. It is unlikely to establish consensus on what to do in another article, especially not when there is no link to that discussion in this other article's talk page. In other words, discussion at Talk:2020 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations is of limited relevance to what we do on 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. At most you can link and refer to that discussion when starting a new discussion at Talk:2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony when seeking consensus on changes for the opening ceremony article. Also I had a look at the talk page and all I see is you making some fairly generic comments at Talk:2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony#Lack of critical response, especially from Japanese media directly quoting sources (i.e. so not something we can add to the article) and another editor who is active in editing the article agree with you. If no one has made changes sufficient to address your concerns and you want to effect a change, you'll likely need to make a more specific proposal about precisely what text you want to add and where along with the sources you plan to use. I also do not see these "repeatedly made to remove controversial contents, previous to and during discussion" on [9], just regular editing. If you are going to make such allegations please provide WP:diffs in the future. But it's likely irrelevant as long as there is no proper attempt to discuss disputed changes, as I said making generic comments on the talk page is not sufficient. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would add that one of your suggestions in the discussion I linked above (length of Bach's speech) has already been added to the article. Your link for another one namely on police officers being quarantined doesn't work so I have no idea if it's even relevant to the opening ceremony. Even if it was, it seems a bit of a weird random detail to add unless it significantly affected the ceremony in some way. It's well established that COVID-19 has affecting all parts of the games and there is already discussion of COVID-19 in the opening ceremony article. The emperor one well if you continue to feel that's significant enough to add, I suggest you follow my advice and come up with a concrete proposal and try to work it out on the talk page. 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Female genital mutilation#In_the_spotlight

The article section, Female genital mutilation#Prevalence, goes Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia;[83] in the United Arab Emirates;[3] and in India[n] by the Dawoodi Bohra.[84][o] It is found within immigrant communities around the world.[87]

I believe the mention of one particular community, "Dawoodi Bohra", is putting them on the pedestal they didn't ask to be put on, kind of like reverse wp:soapbox, which in this case, manifests from wp:bias, wp:fringe, wp:advocacy sources ( Bootwala, 2019, p. 225). Besides, that statement is incorrect: Dawoodi Bohras aren't the only group in India to practice "female circumcision", ref1, ref2 (as that statement makes it seem).

This is before we even get to the citation that statement is supported with, which is a footnote on "FGM in India" in a UNICEF 2016 brochure quoting an opinion piece published in an advocacy magazine, and so, I don't think it meets wp:medrs when even wp:rs is suspect.

I proposed a reword to: Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia;[83] in the United Arab Emirates;[3] and in India.[n] It is found within immigrant communities around the world.[87]

Since the involved editors couldn't reach a consensus on FGM's talk page, I'd like to see what other editors think. Thanks. coi: I am a dawoodi bohra. Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 14:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Simple analysis of the text where a list of countries is given, and then only one specific subcultural is spelt out, seems to be giving undue weight to that culture, and would agree its inappropriate. If we were listing other sub-cultures in the other countries, then that wouldn't stand out as a problem, but here it is definitely giving one sub-culture undue spotlight. -- Masem ( t) 14:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess we're needing to follow the source(s). If they single out a sub-culture or just say "parts of" a country, what can Wikipedia do but follow? That's kind of what NPOV is. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The text in that UNICEF brochure goes, Evidence suggests that FGM/C exists in some places in South Americasuch as Colombia1 and elsewhere in the world including in India,2 Malaysia,3 Oman,4 Saudi Arabia,5 and the United Arab Emirates,6 with large variations in terms of the type performed, circumstances surrounding the practice and size of the affected population groups.. So as I see it, there's no singling out a sub-culture, but in fact large variations in terms of the type performed, circumstances surrounding the practice, and size of the affected population groups is crucially ignored from the article. And, I stand to contest if the brochure even meets wp:medrs and whether the opinion piece it cites is the WP:BESTSOURCES one can find (the linked Bootwala study above calls out biases in these anecdotal survey-based studies and refutes its clinical claims). Also, the juxtaposition of the text gives it, imho, a WP:FALSEBALANCE, like another editor pointed out. Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 18:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Which countries/ cultures practise it isn't under MEDRS' scope, because it isn't biomedical information. So, e.g., describing potential effects on health/reproduction would fall umdrr BIOMED and requite MEDRS sourcing, but this does not: this is nearer to anthropology/sociology. (those other things you mentioned, btw, probably would require MEDRS sourcing - but a simple country list would not, but would still have to meet normal RS standards). Firejuggler86 ( talk) 14:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Firejuggler86.

1. The claims made by the footnote UNICEF cites are of medical nature. Read up the source Per one wp:medrs ( Bootwala, 2019, p. 225) source I know of, these studies have been refuted as having no clinical basis and accused of bias. Note that, there have been zero clinical studies or government approved / sanctioned studies on Dawoodi Bohra practice of FGM/C. Wikipedia, in its neutral voice seem to be leading the narrative here (imo).

2. Why single-out a group? Alexbrn claims because UNICEF did so, but that isn't the case. "Dawoodi Bohra" was plucked out of a foot-note and presented with prominence and lumped together with countries who's population sizes are 50x the Dawoodi Bohras.

3. Even if it was true in 2016, Bohras are not the only Islamic group in India alleged to be practising female genital circumcision ( ref).

The sentence should capture the spirit of what UNICEF brochure says (which I quote above too): Evidence suggests that FGM/C exists in some places in South Americasuch as Colombia1 and elsewhere in the world including in India,2 Malaysia,3 Oman,4 Saudi Arabia,5 and the United Arab Emirates,6 with large variations in terms of the type performed, circumstances surrounding the practice and size of the affected population groups. The current wording in the article doesn't do that Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia;[83] in the United Arab Emirates;[3] and in India[n] by the Dawoodi Bohra. It is crucially missing large variations in terms of the type performed, circumstances surrounding the practice, and size of the affected population groups which has been relegated to a footnote and what was in the footnote (ie, Dawoodi Bohra) has been soapboxed into the main sentence. Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

How's this rewrite? It avoids undue weight on any group and collapses the key information in the footnote into the body. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that various types of FGM are also practised in various circumstances in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and India, but there are no representative data on the prevalence in these countries.

LaundryPizza03 looks good to me. Alexbrn, Firejuggler86, and Johnuniq, thoughts? Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar's argument looked convincing on its face and persuaded me initially. Then I reviewed the sources that Murtaza.aliakbar cited, namely, ref1, ref2, and discovered that these two sources entirely belie Murtaza.aliakbar's claim that the practise of FGM in India is not relatively unique or exclusive to the "Dawoodi Bohra" community. Both sources, cited by Murtaza.aliakbar himself, gave significant, if not exclusive prominence to the practise of FGM in the "Dawoodi Bohra" community. The source ref1 explicitly stated that "FGM in India is practiced mainly in the Bohra community."

The claim that "there are no representative data on the prevalence in these countries" will be misleading. There is information on the prevalence of this practise, specifically for India. And that information comes from the sources cited by Murtaza.aliakbar himself. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I could use some additional feedback from other editors at Talk:Mitragyna speciosa#Preclinical research.

The Research section of this page writes that "There is no scientific evidence that kratom is safe or effective for any medical condition, as of 2021, and concerns remain about its safety." As a minor qualm, this statement does not seem to be true. While it's true that concerns remain about safety, a recent systematic review including both preclinical and clinical evidence writes the following: "Preclinical data indicated a therapeutic value in terms of acute/chronic pain (N = 23), morphine/ethanol withdrawal, and dependence (N = 14), among other medical conditions (N = 26). Clinical data included interventional studies (N = 2) reporting reduced pain sensitivity [...] Although the initial (pre)clinical evidence on kratom's therapeutic potential and its safety profile in humans is encouraging, further validation in large, controlled clinical trials is required." The review describes several clinical and preclinical studies that found kratom to be both relatively safe and more effective than placebo for certain medical conditions. Is this not scientific evidence?

By saying that there is no scientific evidence that kratom is safe or effective for any medical condition, the current page seems to contradict this recent review while taking a non-neutral stance in this field of research. We should be careful not to make medical claims, but we should still reflect current scientific literature as neutrally and accurately as possible. A reputable secondary source does not seem to support the statement that "There is no scientific evidence that kratom is safe or effective for any medical condition, as of 2021." As a proposed edit, I'd like to consider the following: "A 2021 review of preclinical and clinical studies concluded that evidence on kratom's safety profile and therapeutic potential is encouraging, but noted that further clinical research is required to validate these findings as concerns remain about the safety of kratom."

Thanks in advance for any feedback, A122045fma ( talk) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What part of " ... further validation in large, controlled clinical trials is required."? are you finding difficult to understand? That is the bit that supports "no scientific evidence." - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finding it difficult to understand how clinical research and preclinical research that has already been done does not count as scientific evidence. Saying that more clinical research is needed does not mean that no clinical or preclinical research has been performed. This is a systematic review of 75 scientific studies, including both 57 preclinical studies and 18 clinical studies. I would consider the conclusion of this review to be scientific evidence. A122045fma ( talk) 16:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to look again at the statement further validation in large, controlled clinical trials is required. and follow up by taking a look at our sourcing policy for medical claims, WP:MEDRS - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how it would be making a medical claim to say that research is encouraging, as an almost direct quote from a reputable secondary source on this subject. This seems like a great source to use per MEDRS guidelines, since it's a peer-reviewed secondary source (systematic review) published in a high-quality journal. The guidelines say "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals [...]". Describing the conclusions of this article as faithfully as possible would seem to be acceptable, since this would seem to be following the MEDRS guidelines of respecting secondary sources while using up-to-date evidence. There are many great Wikipedia pages on other subjects that mention promising medical research while still being careful not to make medical claims. A122045fma ( talk) 17:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a bit odd to quote an article's abstract and assert that is what an article "concluded". The article's actual conclusion if far more circumspect. Also, far from finding kratom's safety profile "encouraging", the actual article's conclusions says "Kratom-related safety issues must be carefully considered". The proposal here looks like over-egging. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right that this is the conclusion of the abstract, rather than the conclusion of the manuscript. According to the conclusion of the manuscript, "Taken together, our findings help to explain, but not endorse, the empirical medical use reported by kratom users in non-medical settings in both Asian traditional and Western countries, suggesting that kratom could be a useful aid in the treatment of acute/chronic pain, opioid and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders. Kratom-related safety issues must be carefully considered."

Anyone can see for themselves that the authors describe the safety profile of kratom to be "encouraging" while describing scientific evidence for kratom's therapeutic potential (though the word "encouraging" is technically in the conclusion of the abstract rather than the conclusion of the manuscript). The proposed edit describes this article's main ideas almost word-for-word, so I don't see how this is over-egging. My proposed edit would reflect the need to consider safety issues, so I don't understand the point being made here.

If the word "concluded" in my proposed edit is a problem, then perhaps the following statement could be used instead: "A 2021 review of preclinical and clinical studies found that evidence on kratom's safety profile and therapeutic potential is encouraging, but noted that further clinical research is required to validate these findings as concerns remain about the safety of kratom." If you disagree that this is what the review found, then perhaps we can use the word "claimed" instead of "found" as another proposed option. The article does claim that "[...] the initial (pre)clinical evidence on kratom's therapeutic potential and its safety profile in humans is encouraging [...]". A122045fma ( talk) 18:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I 'd suggest, instead of using "A 2021 review of preclinical and clinical studies found that", a better wording would be "In 2021, AuthorName and al, published a review of clinical studies that suggests/claims this and that..". The reason is obvious I guess. As for inclusion, I am not certain. Are there more available studies/reviews concerning this topic? and why wont we wait a couple of months to see how other scholars make use of this particular review? Generally I am for inserting info from review articles. So, consider me as neutral. In any case, FDA opinion should presented as WP Voice. Cinadon 36 18:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, this is very helpful. I'll wait a few months to see how this paper is received. This seems to be the most recent large review of preclinical and clinical research on kratom. I'll stick to editing the Pharmacology section and will leave the Research section alone for the moment. Best, A122045fma ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Recntly, I've had a dispute with M.Bitton regarding updates of the page of Brahim Ghali. As a matter of fact, I added new sources and tried to make the information as neutral and comprehensive as possible. However, the editor reverted my edits and refused to discuss the subject on the Talk page.I believe the editor is biased in favor of the subject I'd like to get a second opinion on my updates from less biased editors and re-evaluate it my edits. You can compare my edits here (together with the references) as I'm afraid they can be also erased on the Talk page:

ere is the new version I wrote and in case my edits are reverted once again by the biased editor, I will leave this text as a proof that my edits are:

• Well-sourced
• Written in neutral tone - there is no attack on the person here - only facts and new sources.

Here is the text I added once again to the page:

In 2009, the Sahrawi Association for the Defense of Human Rights (ASADEDH), a nonprofit human rights group based in Spain,[9][10] filed a number of lawsuits against Brahim Ghali for alleged torture and military crimes committed during his leadership at Polisario Front.[11][12][13][14][15] The Canary Association of Victims of Terrorism (Acavite) was also involved representing Canary Island workers and fishermen allegedly attacked by the Polisario. [16] Eventually dismissed, the lawsuits were reopened after Ghali's arrival to Spain in 2021 to recover from a critical health state due to COVID-19.[11][17][18] On 19 May 2021, the Spanish Audiencia Nacional summoned Ghali to testify as accused party in the quarrels presented by the ASADEDH and the dissident Fadel Breica; Ghali telematically testified from the Hospital San Millán-San Pedro in Logroño (as he was recovering from COVID-19) on the convened date of 1 June 2021.[19] The Spanish High Court, earlier that day, turned down a request for Ghali to be taken into custody, stating that the plaintiffs in the war crimes case against him had failed to provide evidence he had committed any crime, in the preliminary hearing, also arguing there are no "clear indications of his involvement" in the crimes of which Ghali has been accused.[18][20] Shortly afterwards, Ghali left Spain and landed in Algeria on 2 June 2021,[21] continuing with the less acute phase of his recovery in the Ain El Naaja military hospital in Algiers, where he was visited by Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune.[22] In addition, Ghali was also accused of rape by the Sahrawi woman Khadijatou Mahmoud, who claimed she was raped in 2010 by Brahim Ghali in the embassy of the the Sahrawi Republic (SADR) in Algiers.[23] During that period, Mahmoud worked as a translator in the office of the Prime Minister of the SADR assisting different NGOs engaged in humanitarian aid for the Sahrawi refugee camps in the Tindouf Province, Algeria.[16][24] According to testimony provided by Khadijatou, Ghali, who was the SADR ambassador in Algiers at the time, called her to his office after-hours, and promptly assaulted and raped her once she entered Upon returning to Spain, where she was adopted by the Spanish parents, Khadijatou Mahmoud sued Ghali in 2013 filing a lawsuit with the Spanish Court.[25] According to La Razon, her case was dismissed in 2018 because Mahmoud was not a Spanish citizen and the crime occured in Algeria.[23] However, the case was reopened when Ghali arrived with the diplomatic passport as "Mohamed Benbatouche"[26] at Spain for medical treatment in 2021[27] [28][29] but dismissed again on June 1, 2021.[23][30]

-- Chartwind ( talk) 22:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

the editor reverted my edits and refused to discuss the subject on the Talk page That's a lie! I replied to your comment (even ignoring the personal attack) on the talk page within 5 minutes of you posting it.

I believe the editor is biased in favor of the subject Given the fact that you lied, that you're resorting to using garbage Moroccan sources (a Moroccan student, yabiladi, northafricapost, int.ma, altalsinfo.fr) and that you removed the mention of CORCAS (without explanation), it doesn't take a genius to work out what I believe you are.

Anyway, what was in the news is already properly covered in the article (taking up too much space as it is, per WP:BLPCRIME, considering that the judge dismissed the allegations as baseless). I will invite Asqueladd, another editor who contributed to the article and see what they have to say. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with M.Bitton's assessment. Also taking this to this noticeboard at this (very early) stage of any sort of talk page discussion seems to be inappropiate. The format of the proposal brought forward by Chartwind (which does not add new content in a meaningful form) goes against WP:CRIT, particularly given the lightning-quick dismissal of the alleged charges by the courts. Regards.--Asqueladd ( talk) 23:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the page for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank that advocates for a foreign policy of restraint (i.e. anti-war). Editors keep adding content to the lead that says, "It has been criticized for its orientation and stances on policy issues." This strikes me as a NPOV violation for two reasons: 1. it goes without saying that any think tank will have been criticized for its orientation and policy stances, 2. By inserting criticism into the lead of a small article, it gives readers the impression that the think tank is fringe. The body currently includes a criticism by Tom Cotton, as well as a Tablet Magazine and Jerusalem Post criticism of some fellows in the think tank, and an academic article by two proponents of liberal internationalism which criticizes restraint (they are two oppositional grand strategies). These sources are standard for any think tank: criticisms of individual fellows' statements and academic critiques of the policies advocated by the think tank. Is this a NPOV violation? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I have already initiated a relevant discussion on the article talk page [10] and I think existing NPOV guidelines are pretty clear on how we treat this kind of situation. On the other hand, the above user has tried a number of times to hide negative POVs towards this subject backed by RSes. [11] [12] [13] [14] Normchou  ^💬 18:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

When you say I have "tried a number of times to hide negative POVs", you're referring to me removing "X has been criticized"-style text from the lead (text that does not have consensus, yet you continue to re-add to the lead) and text in the body that cherrypicks a quote to make it seem as if the think tank owns up to being anti-semitic [15]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I started a RfC: /info/en/?search=Talk:Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft#Survey Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I am coming here to raise concern over the aggressive POV being pushed in the article Flamenco by TagaworShah that Flamenco is at its origin Romani music and only Romani music.

The origins of Flamenco have been studied in great detail by numerous academics in what is known as the field of Flamencology which involves a number of historiographical currents. Although there are a number of theories on possible roots of the musical genre (which encompasses a range of sub-genres known as palos and none of which are mutually exclusive) the general academic consensus is that its roots are syncretic and unique to Andalusia's history with influence from the Byzantine period, medieval Islamic period, Jewish, Berber and sub-saharan African, gitano/romani together with various modern influences specific to their time (reorientalizing casticismo etc).

Flamencologists such as Manuel Bohórquez [16] are categorical in stating that Flamenco does not originate in the Romani people and others such as Austrian Flamencologist (perhaps one of the most renown professors of flamencology) agree with this in their academic studies on the origins of Flamenco which he traces to the Byzantine period, roughly 8 centuries before Romanis started migrating to Spain. [17] I could go on but since there are many such specialist professors in the in the field of flamencology and this is a rather mainstream view. Among these its worth mentioning Hipolito Rossy - perhaps the father of modern flamencology who explains how the roots of flamenco lie in the fusion of christian/Mozarabic, Jewish, Muslim and Romani musical traditions in the lower Andalusia. [18]

The point is that, since the 28th of June when TagaworShah (an editor also interested in Romani activism and seemingly unacquainted with Spanish, Andalusian or Gitano culture) first completely rewrote the stable version of the article without seeking consensus, leveraging dubious sources coming from obscure Romani activists such as Ronald Lee, Ian Hancock and dance teachers in Mid-west US universities (typically Americans interested in Romanticism associated to Gypsies such as this person [19]) to aggressively pursue the line that actually all flamencologists are wrong and that Flamenco is, in fact, a Romani art form and it originates with the Romani people, pushing this in the lead of the article. [20] [21] Almost surreally, he claims that anyone who works with Spanish public universities are inherently biased and they are less credible than his artsy non-specialist activist sources - please read his justification carefully here: [22] This tactic of using the ignorance (for lack of a better word) of non-specialist, activist or enthusiasts to trump peer-reviewed studies in order to aggressively push fringe views is common enough on wikipedia and I am wondering how to deal with it and whether there is any policy to deal with it. I reitirate none of the sources (except Leblon and Holguin) provided by Tagawor are reputable academics in the field of Flamencology nor does he provide any citation from any study to support his claims. Interestingly one of the few reliable sources he claims to rely on (Holguin) does not support the POV he is pushing as shown here: [23], i.e. he is systematically misportraying the statments of the few reliable sources he can get his hands on and flooding the article with sources that do not meet WP:RS.

I understand the policy of "wrong version" (I forgot its exact name) but I would ask User:Cwmhiraeth to unprotect the article since I have already stated that I personally do not intend to revert any more edits by this user. I will simply provide additional sourcing, understanding that edit wars through reverts are a wrong way to approach activist users. Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 18:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Cristodelosgitanos: You are required to notify TagaworShah on their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Done.-- Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 19:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for one week. That will give you time to discuss the points at issue and hopefully reach a consensus. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I expanded and nominated an article for DYK in 2015. As part of the discussion ( Template:Did you know nominations/Ray Martynuik), it was pointed out that I apparently misspelled the subject's last name. This is based on a statement in a Canada.com article: "Canadiens GM Sam Pollock drafted Martynuik fifth overall that June from the Flin Flon Bombers. The goalie should have known he was on thin ice when every newspaper in town misspelled his name 'Martyniuk.'" ( [24]). Because this is considered a reliable source, the statement was taken as fact. I do not dispute that Canada.com should be considered a reliable source, but I believe it is mistaken in this instance.

The spelling "Martyniuk" is used by the National Hockey League [25] (in the third list), Western Hockey League [26] (as the winner in 1968/69 and 1969/70), Hockey Draft Central [27], HockeyDB [28], The Hockey News [29], and the Cranbrook Townsman [30] (the newspaper of his longtime hometown).

Both spellings are used by the Flin Flon Online [31] (the newspaper from his birth town), and Martynuik is used by the Boquete Panama Guide in a one-sentence introduction that copies the Flin Flon Online article [32] (Boquete is the city that he retired to). The Flin Flon Reminder uses Martynuik [33] in an obituary that mentions that he was predeceased by his father Russell. I suspect, but I cannot prove, that this might refer to the Russell Martyniuk of Flin Flon whose grave is pictured here (and whose name is spelled "iu"): [34]. I see Martyniuk as the most common spelling of the name and see Martynuik as a relatively rare alternative (Google hits, which I know are not conclusive, show 3.2 million for Martyniuk vs. 17,000 for Martynuik).

So, I guess the question is which reliable sources take precedence. LlywelynII and I saw this differently but agreed to disagree. I am wondering if we can build a wider consensus.

Thank you for any input (or for redirecting me to the proper noticeboard if this isn't the place to ask). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I gather that this might not have been the proper noticeboard. I had originally thought about the reliable sources noticeboard, but it seemed to indicate that it shouldn't be used if the source(s) in question are generally considered to be reliable. Does anyone have thoughts on where this question should be asked? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Denys Skoryi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! This article seems to violate WP:NPOV. With such sentences as turning it from the worst medical establishment of its class in Ukraine to one of the best, pioneering state-of-the-art medical procedures or his desire to improve the Center and his relationship with political figures such as [...] led him to become a political figure himself it is quite likely that page was written for advertisement purposes. (see talk page). Also 70% of article covers not achivements or biography of person but problems and reforms of medical facility were person works (which of course can and should be mentioned but in my opinion it is too much right now), which gives undue weight to some events. I tried to tag page twice but templates were reverted. It would be nice to get third opinion on this question.-- Renvoy ( talk) 12:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually do not see from the article why the person is notable.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a promotion tag for the time being. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 18:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Context: The San Francisco Board of Education has become a point of interest within local and national media since 2019 due to some controversial decisions they approved, so much so that there is currently an active recall campaign against several sitting commissioners. Due to the upswell of interest and coverage on the subject matter, there has been an increased amount of edits committed to the page.

I know it's best to WP:AGF with every interaction and nobody can stake WP:OWNERSHIP over an article. But given the political nature of the edits and that all the IP edits are from San Francisco and that they're often over detailed and long-winded, I find it difficult to assume that they are coming from a neutral POV. I try my best to incorporate all the new information as best as I can, but I'd often times just get reverted and deemed a censor. I have requested semi-protection from the past when it has devolved into an edit war, but it has been brought up that it privileges editors with experience if protection persists. And I can't bring every dispute into the talk page due to the fact that I'm not sure if how many unique editors I'm dealing with but they're usually invariably inexperienced and difficult to reason with; You can see from Talk:San Francisco Board of Education previous discussions regarding content disputes that have pretty much gone nowhere.

How do I proceed other than to stop until things have gotten less heated as one of the few active editors on the page? Looking forward to hearing your responses (or criticisms). — BriefEdits ( talk) 23:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My advice… be patient. When a topic is in the news, it is almost impossible to summarize it effectively. But if you wait a bit (usually a few months to a year) you can return to the article and give it a proper rewrite. In the mean time, you can focus your energy on improving other articles. Blueboar ( talk) 23:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I find the advice by User:Blueboar to be admirable. Wp:NotNews, so backing off for a while is a good way to keep from going crazy. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 00:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Naturopathy Article requires quite a lot of work to be brought up to a reasonable standard. Obviously many articles of this type have similar issues but after reading this one it seems particularly egregious. Many of the claims made throughout the article lack proper citation in that they either rely on low-quality or outdated evidence or use citations for statements that are not actually supported in the body of the articles cited. Many claims are not cited at all.

Further to this, there is a distinctive lack of neutral tone throughout the article that does not read as academic writing or indeed, writing that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Throughout the article, many paragraphs are made up of a collection of cherry-picked NPOV details. By systematically neglecting certain facts and presenting others, these passages presenting a series of NPOV details compose a very POV picture overall. There are also passages and links that seem to have no connection to the topic aside from fostering sensationalism.

Upon reading the talk page, there is a history of users raising these issues without movement towards making any changes. It seems problematic to me to do such a poor job composing an article, lock it from further editing, and then immediately shut down any criticisms of this approach or the current content. This does not seem to be in good faith or in a collaborative manner which are fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

Moreover, as only somewhat of an aside, recently in Canadian news there was an article outlining issues of widespread bias in Wikipedia editing: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 The article notes that as per a Wikimedia report on community engagement in 2018, over 90% of contributors to its projects were men. Wikipedia itself encourages women to engage in editing through its Project Rewrite initiative annually because of this issue of bias. Given that naturopathy as a profession is predominantly and some may say even overwhelmingly made up of female practitioners, it seems particularly problematic that in light of the acknowledgment of these biases and moves to resolve these issues, this article be maintained in such a biased format.

Where I live in Canada Naturopathy is a regulated health profession and as such, for the portion of the pandemic when everything was closed aside from essential healthcare, naturopathy services were still open and I was able to access them. While I recognize that this is not the case everywhere in North America, more care needs to be taken to update the Naturopathy article to accurately represent the current state of the profession. Which although I am young does seem to be much different from where it was 15-20 years ago when many of the citations are from.

Thank you for your time.

E.yorke0 ( talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, when people like you suggest that Wikipedia is "biased" on alternative medicine related topics it usually means that Wikipedia is doing a good job at portraying these topics accurately. I think your complaints can be safely ignored. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@ E.yorke0: the article is only locked for new editors who have less than 10 edits and have registered less than 3 days ago (i.e., editors who are not autoconfirmed). Soon you'll be able to edit the article and improve it. Probably other editors will disagree with some of your changes and revert them, after which you should discuss these specific edits at the talk page. Try to make small changes at first, so they can be discussed more easily one by one. If then something arises which you think does not align with WP:NPOV (but read that page very carefully first, because most people don't understand it, even if they think they do!), and you cannot solve it at the talk page, you can come back here for further review. Thanks and happy editing! ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 21:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed the article is not up to Wikipedia standards. I have been trying to improve it, as well as others, but it is an uphill battle, as some editors feel like any effort to improve an article in alternative medicine is an attack from POV-pushers and will undo almost any attempt to improve. This is not about YWAB, or undue weight, it's about the language and sources used, as well as a lot of synthesis happening. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, as only somewhat of an aside, recently in Canadian news there was an article outlining issues of widespread bias in Wikipedia editing: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 The article notes that as per a Wikimedia report on community engagement in 2018, over 90% of contributors to its projects were men. Wikipedia itself encourages women to engage in editing through its Project Rewrite initiative annually because of this issue of bias. Given that naturopathy as a profession is predominantly and some may say even overwhelmingly made up of female practitioners, it seems particularly problematic that in light of the acknowledgment of these biases and moves to resolve these issues, this article be maintained in such a biased format. Oh come on. In the first place, that study and its news coverage had egregious issues, not least the authors' apparent incomprehension of what a wikipedia article even is (versus a draft) let alone what is considered a pass of NPROF or what is necessary to survive AfD; and secondly, what a ridiculous and insulting assertion that not tiptoeing around the non-empirical bullshit of naturopathy is somehow sexist. As if women's strong and growing representation in actual scientific disciplines isn't enough to escape stereotypical GOOPy nonsense being characterized a "woman's domain". JoelleJay ( talk) 00:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Naturopaths are predominantly female. Wikipedia editors are predominantly male. Sexism exists in society. Given all of this, it is worth at least noting the gendered dynamics present - especially in the context of a pronounced gender bias in Wikipedia content which is publicly acknowledged as a problem by Wikipedia itself. E.yorke0 ( talk) 00:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

According to some ecofeminists, the dominance of male over female is a structural part of a broader dualistic system which is also responsible for the dominance of the rational over the emotional, of culture over nature, of the public over the private, etc. The dominance of evidence-based medicine over naturopathy may also be construed on that line. In my view, the gendered nature of these dichotomies is to a certain extent real, but since gender is itself a cultural construct, these dichotomies do not necessarily have a biological basis. I personally believe that they are in fact part of an incorrect and immoral patriarchal worldview which should itself be rejected. From that perspective, coming to the defense of naturopathy from a feminist agenda is deeply mistaken, since it only reinforces patriarchal dualism. Of course, some ecofeminists, of whom you might be one, may disagree. In any case, Wikipedia has a very strict policy on pseudoscience, especially for anything related to medicine (see WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS). You'll also find that most of the editors who stay active in the pseudoscience area are either strongly anti (a majority) or strongly pro (a minority). You might find it more enjoyable to edit in other areas. Especially if your academic expertise should lie elsewhere, I would in fact strongly recommend doing that. Hope this helps, ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 01:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that it does make sense to place evidence-based medicine and naturopathy as opposing sides of a dichotomy. Largely because contemporary naturopaths in regulated provinces do use evidence-based medicine. That dichotomy would make more sense if one were only referring to the more traditional naturopathic approach which is not currently in favour (at least where I live in Canada which is regulated). I think that is part of the problem of the article - that there is this dualistic nature within the field itself and that the complexity of that and the differences between the more traditionalist viewpoints and what is actually currently legal and practiced in regulated jurisdictions are not adequately represented. The former is taken to be the whole. Which could be viewed as either lazy or purposeful. Or, perhaps I am just naive to the fact that Wikipedia is meant to be more representative of the American context than something broader than that, as there are direct references to the American regulations in the lead of the article whereas the same paragraphs don't make reference to international jurisdictions.

As per the second point, I also don't ascribe to that patriarchal dualism. And I think that some of the problematic aspects of how knowledge is produced on this website are actually much more complex than it could ever explain. I am not coming from an ecofeminist perspective or drawing a connection between women and the "natural". Only pointing to what I don't believe to be a coincidence, that an article about a profession predominantly inhabited by women is given what I believe to be an unfair and disrespectful treatment on a website edited primarily by men. There do need to be ways to describe and discuss the long-standing gender bias of Wikipedia and it shouldn't really be that controversial to acknowledge its presence. I could also state there are myriad other forms of bias I'm not referring to above mostly because I don't have news or other media articles outlining them to open up a discussion as readily.

Unfortunately, after my brief but negative experiences thus far, I did a quick search to try to find an explanation as to why it might be such a negative environment and found various pieces outlining a toxic culture within Wikipedia - this among them: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/. I can only assume that it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience to edit on the site in general as it seems to be a much more widespread problem. E.yorke0 ( talk) 02:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You cry and whinge to ANI about me personally attacking you, but you then baselessy accuse Wikipedians of being misogynists when this isn't what the dispute is about. This isn't about misogyny, it's about the fact that we have to provide reliable medical information, see WP:MEDRS. We aren't writing a Naturopathy in Canada article, we are trying to provide a worldwide perspective on the issue. I still see no reason to care about your opinion or your long-winded walls of text. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it actually true that worldwide Naturopaths are predominantly female? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is truly not baseless, Wikipedia itself acknowledges this as a major problem and has organized various initiatives in an attempt (so far unsuccessful) at addressing the issue. I'm assuming that you are proficient at research and can therefore find all of this information yourself, should you want to. Further, currently, the article doesn't read as a worldwide perspective, it reads as an American-centric perspective - especially in the lead. Including more information on the field from Canada and elsewhere outside of America would actually help in this regard.

Also upon review, it seems odd that you would have such a severe reaction to the above given that you are at least somewhat aware of these issues based on what you yourself wrote a year ago: "Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 E.yorke0 ( talk) 03:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why were you reading Hemiauchenia's talk-page discussion with a serial sockmaster/troll from almost a year ago? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably just out of ... curiosity? I don't think this question leads anywhere constructive. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 14:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear E.yorke0, you write: Only pointing to what I don't believe to be a coincidence, that an article about a profession predominantly inhabited by women is given what I believe to be an unfair and disrespectful treatment on a website edited primarily by men. As one who has some experience around here, let me tell you that this is just wrong. Wikipedia is primarily edited by men and does suffer from a systemic bias, but the fact that it takes a hard stance, or indeed is unfair and disrespectful (as the case may be), towards naturopathy, has got nothing to do with that. It's part of a broader attitude, which you will find just as much on subjects like homeopathy or reiki. I would like you to trust me on this, and to take a more constructive approach to correcting both gender bias on Wikipedia and the presumed (un)fairness of alternative medicine articles, unrelated as these two issues are. Please also trust me when I say that editing is a whole lot more enjoyable in less controversial areas. Just try it! ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 15:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to say that Apaugasma's comments here are exactly on point regarding perceived misogeny. Thank you. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

E.yorke0, I do not see the issue here. If you think this article needs attention and proper sources, WP:BEBOLD and do the editing you think is required. Do your research, find appropriate sources, add what is needed and delete what is not. Did you just want to present your opinion and start a discussion about it or did you come here looking for a solution? Perhaps there is more to this than is revealed in your initial comment, because it seems simple to me. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd ( talk) 00:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The information on this page states that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan began in early 1979 and this is true of most, if not all, accounts of this period in the country's history. I was in Kabul in October/November 1978 and, in pursuit of a visa to travel to Pakistan, visited the the diplomatic quarter housing most of the embassies of other countries in of the capital (Kabul) at least twice. On these visits I saw (and walked past) soviet tanks, clearly marked with the red star insignia, quietly parked on street corners. This was at least 3 months before the world's media started reporting a soviet presence in Afghanistan.

Apart from this eye-witness account (and I cannot be the only private individual to have witnessed this), is there no corroborating evidence that can be obtained to reset the timeline of the soviet presence in Afghanistan?

The information within the article should reflect only what is revealed in its sources. If there is a lack of sources and that concerns you, then you should start researching the information and provide as much improvement to the article as you can. If you are looking for evidence that corroborates what you experienced, then look for it and add it to the article as you are able, making sure to keep your own POV out. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd ( talk) 00:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Macrobiotic diet (or macrobiotics) is a diet based on ideas about types of food drawn from Zen Buddhism.[1][2] The diet tries to balance the supposed yin and yang elements of food and cookware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.225 ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems to concern removal of " fad diet" in diff. Concerns should first be raised at Talk:Macrobiotic diet with a reliable source. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there an issue here? The top of this article says there is a backlog of issues that need to be addressed, so it behooves us to ensure the only issues here are ones with actual conflicts that need resolution. I am not sure what the issue is here and believe this needs to be removed or closed as being on the wrong venue, especially since its author is unsigned. Perhaps the comments this editor is making is better suited for the article's Talk page. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, does a recent meta-analysis [35] with mixed findings constitute enough evidence to remove the statement "Stimulant medications are the most effective pharmaceutical treatment" from the ADHD article? Stimulant medications are very well-supported as the most effective treatment by a lot of secondary and tertiary MEDRS. We've had a few reverts/reworkings (initial change [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; edit seems unrelated but summary implies that it is related [42]). All involved editors (@ Medhekp:, @ Jr8825:, and myself) have explained our views on the talk page. We're also not sure of the reliability of the source for this claim, but I think due weight is the primary issue here (if it's undue, then it doesn't matter if it's MEDRS; if it's MEDRS, it still matters if it's due). Cheers folks. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

lmao don't worry about that last edit I linked, I just hadn't read something properly. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This has come up a few times in the last couple days (likely due to attention from the Texas law) but I've seen IP editors changing "anti-abortion" in articles to "pro-life". Eg Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

There's obviously some cases where we don't have to talk about the stance of anti-abortion or pro-life - for example, in regards to Tripwire Interactive (the CEO who spoke out in favor of Texas's bill and then subsequently stepped down after a lot of negative feed back), the bill can be described as just "Texas's abortion bill" and not worry about its stance on that page. But taking the Dobbs SCOTUS case, where the position of Justice Barrett has been brought up by sources, we have to describe the position to one side or the other.

And here, this is where I would use what the majority of reliable sources use. Which in the specific case of Dobbs, most call out Barrett's stance as "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (which I would guess if you went to more conservative sources you'd find).

But this seems to be one of those general issues I can as an issue as this Texas law continues to bubble up in the news plus the pending case at the Supreme Court. My gut tells me that if a side has to be written out, to stick to the wording picked by RSes. -- Masem ( t) 20:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not just recent; it's always a frequent change in abortion-related articles. My impression is that it's more or less resolved that we use the descriptive term "anti-abortion" rather than the slogan "pro-life" for a variety of reasons (precision being no small part of it). Excepting, of course, when "pro-life" is part of the name of the organization. I'm having trouble digging up the relevant threads, but think I remember JzG pointing to one not all that long ago. Perhaps he has it handy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be a little bit concerned if the rational for choosing "anti-abortion" in wikivoice is simply because that's the moral stance we want WP to take; its far more fair (from a neutrality standpoint) that we have selected that based on the bulk of our RSes generally edge on that terminology over "pro-life". But if we have decided it, we should at least have some pointer - maybe not here then? maybe at Words to Watch? to make sure this is a clear guideline. -- Masem ( t) 21:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How did you read because that's the moral stance we want WP to take into my response? The main reason is precision. Pro-life has also been used to talk about people who oppose capital punishment, oppose war, oppose euthanasia. It's a slogan/marketing term rather than descriptive, and isn't even used evenly by anti-abortion movements internationally. We should also avoid "pro-choice" for much the same reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If the rationale was the precision issue, that's fine too. As long as there are good neutrality reasons like precision , sourcing, etc. for why we set on anti-abortion, that's fine, rather than if the decision was primarily based on WP editors deciding on this solely on having WP pick that moral side of the issue with no other rationale. -- Masem ( t) 21:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In May 2018 there was a discussion of these issues ( [43]) that resulted in renaming United States pro-life movement --> United States anti-abortion movement, and similarly United States pro-choice movement --> United States abortion rights movement. The first of those articles describes both of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as examples of political framing. NightHeron ( talk) 01:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There are editors on the Chinese Communist Party page who are fighting to keep content in the lead of the Chinese Communist Party page that claims that the party "is officially organized on the basis of democratic centralism". This content misleads readers into thinking the CCP is a democratic institution. I maintain that this is NPOV violation. China is a fully fledged authoritarian state where dissidence, whether expressed by party members or not, is repressed, regardless of what the CCP brands itself as. However, editors on the CCP talk page maintain that I am showing "ignorance on the matter" and that my claim "that the CPC doesn't have democratic procedures is laughable". [44] This leads me to wonder: should the lead to the Chinese Communist Party page prominently make readers think that the CCP is a democratic institution? 07:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans ( talk • contribs)

of course it is not. I am surprised it is even being discussed. " Democratic centralism" means no fractions are allowed.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you @ Ymblanter: but it is crucial we explain the context here, add and explain all opinions. As I see it, the result wont be far from your perspective. Cinadon 36 07:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Typically, they are correct. Attribution is the solution here. We must explain the procedure of democratic centralism, add the objections (why it is not democratic in essence) and clarify what the majority of scholars think. Also, CCP's own site isn't a reliable source- or it is borderline at least and should be attributed whenever used. I am happy to notice that there is a section on democratic centralism. Ref.157 of current version isn't reliable though. I would add a {{ bcn}} template next to it. Someone must find a better sources (academic literature) and change the whole text of the section. After achieving consensus, lead can should change. So, my advice is to focus on the main body. I have done a google search and the Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Communist Party Edited By Willy Wo-Lap Lam seems very interesting. Cinadon 36 07:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As someone who graduated from high school in the Soviet Union (where one would be required to know what democratic centralism means) I am pretty sure there are tons of sources explaining it and saying that the CCP is organized according to this principle, but I would not know where to look for these sources.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct, that 's why we should stick to the best RS. I am sure there are academic publications from OUP and Cambridge. Cinadon 36 07:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming I'm allowed to comment here as an involved editor, I would say that the source is absolutely fine for the claim. The claim is that the party is "officially" organised on this principle, in other words that it is nominally democratic centralist. This is separate from whether democratic centralism is upheld in practice. The procedure of democratic centralism is explained enough immediately following this claim - since this is the lede, we shouldn't go into much more detail than is necessary. If people want more sources for the "nominally democratic centralist" claim, I would point them to the constitution of the CPC which states Democratic centralism combines centralism built on the basis of democracy with democracy under centralized guidance. It is both the Party’s fundamental organizational principle and the application of the mass line in everyday Party activities. as well as the constitution of the PRC which states The state institutions of the People’s Republic of China shall practice the principle of democratic centralism. This is separate from whether this is upheld in practice, though, and this seems to be Snooganssnoogans's confusion. Once it's clear that the claim is synonymous with "the CPC says it is organised on dem-cent", I don't see how ref 157 is unreliable, although we don't even need this source when we can use official Party documents such as the constitution. Surely the Party's own words would be the most reliable source for a claim about what the Party has said. Acalycine ( talk) 08:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ Acalycine:. As I see it, lead should reflect main body- currently it does. The real problem is that in the main body of the article, the reality isn't reflected adequately. Ref157 is not an independent source, hence it should be at least attributed. Also, it shouldnt be supporting strong claims. Generally, WP should be based on secondary sources. May I point to Routhledge book I cited above? Here it goes at section "The organization principles and structure of the Party" On paper, the main organization principles of the Party look very democratic: democratic centralism, collective leadership and election of leaders (Constitution of the Communist Party of China 2012). In reality, the CCP is very hierarchical: ultimate responsibility is personally exerted by the Party committee secretary at each level as well as in every state organization (yibashou), and leaders are coopted, the election being relegated to a formalistic final step in the process, usually with very little competition or uncertainty. In addition the CCP is a huge and diverse organization that can be divided into three major groups: the roughly 60 million Party simple members (out of a total of 89 million at the end of 2015) who are not cadres and are distributed among some 4.4 million grassroot Party cells or branches (China Daily 2016); the approximately 19 million CCP ordinary cadres who hold responsibilities.... Cinadon 36 08:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well if the democratic centralism section doesn't feature a critique of whether dem-cent is actually upheld in the CPC, editors are free to change it and add something like "Although its practice has been disputed by some commentators" to the lede accordingly. This doesn't appear to be what the original editor was proposing and was not something I or other editors contested. In my view ref157 is already attributed by the use of "Officially", but I'm in favour of removing it (if the official journal doesn't reflect the views of the Party) and using the two official Party documents as sources instead, which would both be already attributed by "officially". What is the problem with using primary sources to support this uncontroversial claim though? WP:PRIMARY states that A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. If this really is a problem, then I'm sure we can find a secondary source that states that the CPC officially upholds democratic centralism - an uncontroversial claim. Acalycine ( talk) 08:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Acalycine:The problem with Primary Sources, is that they can not be trusted and could easily turn an article into OR. Primary Sources can be used for uncontroversial claims but it is always preferable to use secondary sources. Since secondary sources exist, why using Primary? Anyway, this is a minor issue. Also, the non-democratic character/"essence" of CCP shouldn't be written as critique, rather it should be stated as describing reality. Criticism should be inserted whenever RS are mentioning criticism of a topic. Willy Wo-Lap Lam isn't criticizing CCP, it is stating how things are. So, to summarize coz I got to go: my suggestion is to focus on the main body of the text, use RS from academic literature and when consensus is achieved, then fix lead (if needed) Cinadon 36 08:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a minor point, but can you provide me policy that states it is preferable to use secondary sources, even if it's an uncontroversial claim? I also don't see why it can't be written as critique, i.e. attributing it like "However, according to [secondary source], the CPC does not uphold democratic centralism because..." - this is of course premised on the existence of other sources arguing against, for example, Willy Wo-Lap Lam's view (if I understand NPOV correctly, If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements). But anyway, this is a discussion for the CPC talk page. Thanks. Acalycine ( talk) 08:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans and Ymblanter are right. Democratic centralism simply means that no fractions and no alternative views in the political party are allowed. This is not democracy, but just the opposite. Democratic centralism is equal to dictatorship in the Party. This is just a communist newspeak where the actual meaning of the term is opposite to how it sounds. Consider something like socialist realism. This is not a realism at all, but distorting reality to support communist propaganda. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Democratic centralism" is a Marxist-Leninist concept that guides most if not all Communist parties. Objecting to its use is an etymological fallacy, "hold[ing] that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." TFD ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  I dunno, it seems to fit with how those kind of regimes title themselves and, as MVBW says, newspeak. Like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The titles were never accurate, it is not a past vs present thing. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's the terminology that experts on Communism, whatever their views, use. Similarly if one refers to U.S. fundamentalists as "born-again Christians," it doesn't mean that one actually accepts that baptism results in re-birth. When we use the term communist, which means they put the interests of the community first, it does not mean we are endorsing them. TFD ( talk) 04:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• My view is that if that if Democratic Centralism is a real concept in Chinese politics that's how we should call it. It can even have its own article on wikipedia, if its notable enough. It's not for us to play politics on wikipedia or censor or judge political concepts or institutions. Just describe them. People struggle to understand this. Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 20:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Democratic centralism" articles says that scholars are in dispute as to whether the CCP is organised on democractic socialism lines, and the CCP article should also say this, it is indeed the case. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

More comments are needed at this discussion at Los Angeles Police Department. A few things are being discussed, one of which is that a couple editors want to put the Controversies section as the first thing after the History section. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Can an administrator help with some of them edit vandalism on this page? There’s been a few ip users over the past couple of days who have been making fairly non-neutral point of view edits to the article. (You can refer to my edit summaries there for further context) Estnot ( talk) 17:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate extra eyes on The Jewish Chronicle article. See talk page discussion on whether the article is slanted to recent events and on whether criticisms from a blogpost are noteworthy enough to be quoted. I a concerned that the skew towards recent events and toward criticism, much of it weakly sourced, makes the article less than neutral. On the other hand, only two editors have weighed in, so perhaps this is a case of "I don't like it" on my part. I think extra editors' views would be very useful. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look, I was actually thinking of bringing this back to RSN given all the trouble it has had recently. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that skewing the article's POV will in turn skew an RSN discussion if there is another. See this talk page section. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support taking the JC to the RS again, given its awful recent record and the way a considerable number of users commented on the past record of the JC despite that not being part of the RS discussion. Also the sock issues played a part. User DeltaSnowQueen supported this too in the discussion page.

As for neutrality, I find it hard to accept that entirely factual and neutrally worded statements (accepted by BFB as being such) should be excluded from an article in order to avoid "skewing" a future discussion on RS noticeboard. I could understand such an argument if BFB considered them inaccurate, but at no point has he claimed this. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The source which is described as a blog is not, it is an article hosted on a university website written by Wendy Sloane a professor of Journalism dealing with their specialist subject. It is entirely correct to include this information.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a side issue, but the section of the uni website it comes from is called "Expert Commentary" and it looks like a blog to me: https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/expert-commentary/ Calling it that is probably a bit demeaning, but it probably has WP:NEWSBLOG type status in RS terms. I'm not saying it is inaccurate (although there are glaring errors in the article, like misnaming the Community Security Trust, Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman), just that the particular quotes from it are undue. If editors think it's a due source, I think it'd be better to say something like " Wendy Sloane, Associate Professor in Journalism at London Metropolitan University, noted that threats to the paper's survival during the Covid pandemic had been met by sadness and some jubilation, with journalists Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman expressing sorrow and some Labour supporters, such as Andrew Feinstein and Mira Bar-Hillel, welcoming its demise and speculating that libel payouts were impacting on its finances." Wouldn't that be more NPOV? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the current text is substantially factually different from what you propose, though it contains a lot of information that is irrelevant to a section entitled "Criticism". But it seems a bit strange to suddenly be discussing wording here, the article talkpage would surely be the place to have begun discussions. Boynamedsue ( talk) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Sloane, I do not feel that attribution is required for factual information published by an academic on an academic website, but we could discuss that first at the talkpage as is the correct procedure. Boynamedsue ( talk) 02:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Question on whether the article content in 2021 Canadian federal election is compliant with the Neutral Point of View policy, concerning the exclusion of the People's Party of Canada in the "Campaign" section. See Talk:2021 Canadian federal election#People's Party Platform for discussion context and the diff that started the discussion. Multiple editors are defending the exclusion of the party from the "Campaign" section on the basis that there is a project/page consensus that parties without an incumbent seeking re-election are excluded (the first reason was lack of pdf format, second reason later was lack of an incumbent after dismissing my suggestion that the published sources should guide coverage). However, in this case, this particular party is receiving national media attention in roughly proportion to other major parties. There are other sources covering their campaign, but most directly CBC News compares the their platform alongside the other 5 major parties, but their inclusion was (as linked above) undone. Similarly, their non-invitation to the debates received proportional national media coverage as the invitation of the other parties CBC News CTV News Global News but their "Not invited" is excluded from that sub-section. So, is this national media attention to their campaign (which appears to be not minor) sufficient to justify their inclusion in the "Campaign" section based on NPOV's WP:PROPORTION's "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." or WP:DUE's "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." or is this multi-editor agreement really sufficient to limit coverage? maclean ( talk) 04:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Longstanding procedure with all Canadian election articles. Since many parties vie for seats, only those that held seats at the end of the parliamentary session are included in platform articles, even if they occasionally receive some media coverage. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the WP:DUE wording "a distinct (and minuscule) minority" applies to this attempt to change established editorial policy that predates the existence of the PPC, a party that represented 1.6% of the vote last election and in some polls is at the same position they were at the same point last election, when they received a similar level of media coverage.

I suspect this to be yet another attempt by a PPC supporter to have the federal election match their perception of the party's exceptionalism, albeit one that is more neutrally worded than most. G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 05:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the PPC does not belong, as per WP:UNDUE. The PPC is just one of a large number of minor Canadian political parties that get occasional media coverage, but have no MPs and are not forecast to elect any again this election. See https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/ for one such forecast. The set of articles dealing witn the 2021 federal election have seen some fairly obvious COI editing to try to use Wikipedia to promote this party and this has been noted and removed by a large number of non-COI editors. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If the PPC win (at least) one seat in this federal election & hang on to it, the entire 44th Canadian Parliament? We'll definitely include the PPC leader & party in the infobox of the next federal election and the PPC's platform. We won't do neither, for the 2021 federal election, however. GoodDay ( talk) 00:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If the Green Party end up in the PPC's current situation, then next election they'll be treated as the PPC are now. Conversely, I assume either one losing out this time and then entering the house via byelection would get them treated as elected parties for the next election's articles. It's never come up but that seems appropriate. G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter how much coverage the party's campaign gets during this 2021 election in secondary sources, the Rule is they cannot be in the campaign section of this 2021 election's article because they didn't win a seat in the last 2019 election? Even though there are neutral secondary sources describing their impact on this 2021 election [45], that is disallowed content? maclean ( talk) 00:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And the term "disallowed content" is hyperbole; no amount of cherrypicked media content changes their status as an unelected party. No amount of sympathy or antipathy for the party's position changes that simple fact. They are not exceptional to anyone but their supporters. G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would include them. While they will be lucky to win one seat, their current polling at 6.3% of the vote is virtually tied with the Bloc and almost double the Green vote making them significant to the election. Sources on the election routinely mention them. Articles about elections routinely mention extreme right parties that get several percentages of the vote and diminish the chances of traditional right-wing parties.

The article 1935 Canadian federal election mentions the Social Credit, CCF and Reconstruction parties, all of which were new and won respectively 4%, 9% and 9% of the vote. The 1993 Canadian federal election mentions the Reform Party, which won one seat.

TFD ( talk) 06:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are obviously limits on how many parties you should include, but why is how many seats they won last time a better metric than polling? If a new party were to enter the race and be polling at say 50%, would they really be excluded because of a strict commitment to an arcane rule? Going off 338Canada, they are at about 6% (a percentage point below Bloc Quecebois and three above the Greens).

Every news outlet I've been able to find that gives a general overview of the parties mention all six (the five we mention plus PPC). [46] [47] [48] [49] What makes Wikipedia any different? I don't see there being any good reason for us to break with all of the reliable sources on something like this. The election is two days from now, though, so I suppose it makes little difference now. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 06:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is an RfC on Apple cider vinegar dealing with whether the sources say there is "no evidence for any health claims" or "insufficient evidence for any health claims". MarshallKe ( talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There's currently a dispute on benevolent dictator between several editors as to whether the page should contain examples of particular dictators who were benevolent.

I think that to presume a dictator can be benevolent is a big NPOV violation in the first place. Furthermore, most pages do not have lists of examples: woman doesn't have a list of women, for example. Unfortunately there aren't many people commenting over on the article talk and I think the NPOV issue is the main one so I brought it here. Loki ( talk) 15:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But also the woman article has examples. I agree that better sources are needed, but the reader should at least see an example of so-called benevolent dictators. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per Paradise Chronicle. I'll add that 1) there are a lot more women than benevolent dictators, and 2) to presume that a dictator is necessarily un-benevolent is bias. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Banedon ( talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That article is appalling and needs a complete rewrite. The "benevolence" of the Shah of Iran being my particular favourite, where we come perilously close to actually saying "he made the trains run on time". I think no article at all would be better than this pig's ear. The article needs to be neutrally worded and based on academic sources which identify the history of the concept and its ideological use. The opinions on individual "benevolent dictators" (such as the bloody-handed monster Pahlavi) also need explaining with attribution and criticism.

As of now I have NPOV tagged the whole disaster area, perhaps it's worth starting the whole thing from scratch. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As tentatively touched upon in one section of the article, this Turkish TV series is grimly antisemitic and anti-Western in POV. The article's plot summaries (poorly translated) are very much in-universe, and could be read as assuming the accuracy of the series' extremely revisionist caricatures of various figures in world history, Jewish and otherwise. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In General: I would expect all plot summaries to contain no editorializing. For example, a page for star wars need not say the empire is 'bad' and one for 'Gone with the wind' should not have fact checks of every sentence. It can also be useful to think about political books by contentious authors.

In specific: Quote from page "Edmund Rothschild, born in France in 1845, is a member of the Rothschild Banking family; he is a very rich Zionist Jew. An extremely intelligent, cunning, and cold-blooded character, he is an identity that worships money and power like all Rothschilds, sees the world as his own playground, and believes that everything exists to serve him." Not great is it. But the only bit that I see as out of line for wikipedia would be "like all Rothschilds" as it it could be read as real world editorializing. I would need to watch the show to be confident. Is it 'in universe' wrong or is it offensive? Dushan Jugum ( talk) 19:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a very heated debate at Talk:Socialism on whether the article is NPOV or not, that would benefit from more editors' eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The AUKUS article doesn't seem to have a NPOV and seems to be somewhat biased towards France and Europeans, and it feels like it has a very negative POV towards Australia, the US and UK. I don't think it has a NPOV and it would benefit from more editors' eyes. 178.202.82.89 ( talk) 11:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is WP:RECENTISM… the media has not covered AUKUS all that much - until the French reacted to it.

However, because the French reaction was covered (heavily) by the media, that reaction is given a lot of WEIGHT in the article. It definitely needs to be mentioned, but I can see the argument that we give it UNDUE weight. Blueboar ( talk) 12:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There's been other media coverage as well. Definetly there is far too much undue weight to the French/European reaction, and also the submarine component of the pact. 178.202.82.89 ( talk) 12:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There is definetly far too much undue weight to France and Europe. It needs some experienced editors to help make it NPOV and remove any bias. The current editors mostly seem to be from European countries as well which I don't think is helping with the NPOV. AustraliaRodeo ( talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the last few days editing has been dominated by bias against the French view. Trigenibinion ( talk) 18:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The AUKUS situation is the type of place that WP:RECENTISM is a good thing to keep in mind. It may be better to hold to basic facts and keep various reactions that have no bearing on the situation (such as several of those listed in "Other Countries") out of the article for the present until the issues around the deal have died out and a more calm review of what the situation is can be made. In the short term, that likely will mean what France's actual response (in terms of the actions they took) will be a dominate part of it, but we should be documenting the objective facts of the controversy and hold on subjective aspects (opinions from other countries if the deal was proper or not) until we have a clearer picture in the future. -- Masem ( t) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A reference from the French government that clarifies the nature of the partnership was replaced to impose the editor's narrative. Technical details explaining the advantages of French nuclear submarines and unplanned deficiencies of the US designs were also removed. Trigenibinion ( talk) 18:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion about disputed content in the article Julian Assange in which NPOV is ostensibly a factor at this noticeboard. Cambial foliage❧ 23:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Every editor knows that jihad is completely related to Muslims.

Even Wikipedia page states that: Jihad (/dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎, romanized: jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means "striving" or "struggling", especially with a praiseworthy aim. In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah, though it is most frequently associated with war. In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.

Where in the Jihad article, is it written that Jihadis can be Hindu nationalists, Hindutva groups, and Hindu fundamentalists?

In the article Love Jihad, editors entered a section 'Reverse Love Jihad' (where the accusation is against Hindu groups) saying "there is an academic source, and academic sources are better than Indian media sources". I agree with that statement. But, are all academic sources better than all newspaper sources?

This is a very ridiculous thing that, the word Jihad is used to describe some acts by Hindu groups. The academic source that they use is written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). This source cannot be neutral. As a Muslim academic from a Muslim university, cherry picks media reports to say 'Reverse Love Jihad' is a reality. If anybody reads the report by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik in detail, he will find that the 'reverse love jihad part' is written from a media report by 'www.dnaindia.com'. But when the same 'www.dnaindia.com' will report about 'Love Jihad', then the academic will not support it. And neither will the editors editing the article.

This article by dnaindia.com is used by both Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik and editors to support Reverse Love Jihad However Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik will not support these reports by the same dnaindia.com. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3].

AMU was originally Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College. this university was established only for Muslims. Sir Syed Mosque is inside the university. They have a pro-Muslim bias, and their sources can't be used as neutral sources in articles related to Hindu-Muslim religious conflicts.

• The AMU students worked as foot soldiers for the Muslim League during its election campaign in the 1945-46 elections that became a referendum on Pakistan. ^[4]
• (The University of Texas at Austin) The educational institution at Aligarh, founded in 1875, had long been concerned with cultivating a sporting, activist, masculine identity among its students; Muslim League leaders further empowered that identity as they recruited students for election work in support of Pakistan. The students embraced the values of the demand for Pakistan that appeared to be consistent with the values engendered at Aligarh. ^[5]
• The solidarity agenda: Aligarh students and the demand for Pakistan ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1a4e:6973:508f:f274:6b9:e6c3 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC) — 2402:3a80:1a4e:6973:508f:f274:6b9:e6c3 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Be more concise or nobody will answer you.

"Love Jihad" is, as the article says, an Islamophobic conspiracy theory, rather than an aspect of the Islamic theological concept of Jihad. The section of "reverse love Jihad" actually cites proponents of this activity who wish to conduct such a "jihad" despite being Hindus. It seems to be well-sourced and framed neutrally, so I don't see any substance to your objection.

If you think I'm missing something please answer (briefly) outlining the specific problem you have with the neutrality of the text in the article as it stands. Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am good with the neutrality of the language on the page. It might help you to differentiate 'Jihad' an Arabic word/concept (which has crept into English) from 'love Jihad' a not Arabic phrase/concept. We are not saying any of this is true, just that the words have been used and this is what is meant by them. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 04:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University linked sources are not neutral sources for articles where there are accusations against Muslims. I am not aware of any Tel Aviv University's Jew professor's academic sources, are used for writing any Wikipedia article linked to Israel Palestine conflict. It has been explained above that students and teachers of AliGarh Muslim University will have a pro-Muslim mindset. -- Count Of The Baskervilles ( talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... I think you’re just being bigoted... If I though your argument was based in our NPOV policy I would address it as such but it clearly isn’t, these are your own personal issues that you’re pushing on wikipedia and you need to stop. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

When editors don't accept newspaper sources, which mention something they don't like; but accept the same newspaper sources when they mention what they like; that is also bigoted. There is only one academic source that accepts Reverse Love Jihad, and that is from AMU. Historically it has been a Muslim university as linked in the first post. And why would that Reverse Love Jihad section be forced into the Love Jihad page, when both the cases are shown differently. Love Jihad is written as a conspiracy theory. Reverse Love Jihad is written as real. Why did this reverse love jihad's academic source did not come from any other university? I will not accept that Aligarh Muslim University can have religious bias, as others will call me a bigot. As long as Muslim University sources are included in this type of articles, this is not NPOV. Remove Muslim University sources and find some other non-religious university sources.

I don't what extra things you people need to see to understand this. Check their faculty and important posts. from their official website. . Faculty of Agricultural Sciences-Mujeebur Rahman Khan, Faculty of Management Studies and Research-Jamal A Farooquie, Faculty of Arts- Syed Mohammad Hashim, Faculty of Engineering & Technology- Pervez Mustajab, Faculty of Theology- M. Saud Alam Qasmi, Faculty of Medicine- Rakesh Bhargava, Faculty of Commerce- Imran Saleem, Faculty of Social Sciences- Nisar Ahmad Khan, Faculty of Life Sciences- Wasim Ahmad, Faculty of Unani Medicine-F.S.Sherani, Faculty of Law- Mohammad Ashraf, Faculty of Science- Mohammad Ashraf, Faculty of International Studies- Jawaid Iqbal, Registrar- Abdul Hamid, IPS, His Holiness Dr Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Prof. Tariq Mansoor is the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, Finance Officer and Professor- Mohd. Mohsin Khan, Controller Of Examination and Associate Professor- Mujib Ullah Zuberi, Proctor- Mohd. Wasim Ali, Public Relations Office- M. Shafey Kidwai. I can what is available on their official website. Other than Rakesh Bhargava from Medicine, their entire university members are Muslims. And their religious history is also mentioned in the beginning.

My objection to the neutrality is that Aligarh Muslim University is not a neutral source for Hindu-Muslim conflict related articles;

Unless, Wikipedia accepts University of Tehran's academic sources for Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, or Wikipedia accepts Myanmar university academic sources to write Conflict in Rakhine State (2016–present). -- Count Of The Baskervilles ( talk) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

AUKUS Article Diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=AUKUS&type=revision&diff=1047249274&oldid=1047246896

The following background information keeps getting added about France in the AUKUS article, from reading it I don't think it has a NPOV. I think it results in a Pro France view, rather than NPOV. Does it have a NPOV?

AustraliaRodeo ( talk) 20:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the people who keep removing it don't have a NPOV. Trigenibinion ( talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AUKUS § Request for comment on Background to French Response. — 2d37 ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — 2d37 ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good day. I haven't posted anything here before, so please let me know if I'm doing this wrong.

The Your papers, please article may need some looking over. Aside from the only nation provided a section being the United States (despite there most probably being much more to talk about with countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), the really NPOVN-necessitating section is that titled "During the COVID-19 pandemic".

I'm not against the inclusion of such a section, but with unsourced claims like that "Critics of the [immunity passport] compare such document with Ahnenpass", the section at least probably needs more eyes at the minimum, but a rework or removal would probably serve well here. -- RimgailaNB (talk - they/them!) 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is misleading because the demand that people carry and show an identity document has long been standard in most countries and was not invented by fascists. The U.S., UK and some Commonwealth nations are outliers. TFD ( talk) 05:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is about the phrase "papers please", not every instance of the requirement of id throughout history see Identity document. Anything without a reference directly mentioning the phrase (or a miss quote of it) should be removed. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found some 'Papers please' refs for the covid stuff [50] [51], they seem ok. This does not solve the balance problem. So I am new here too, but it is my understanding you should try to solve this on the articles talk page first. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 08:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Apple_cider_vinegar#Removed_section_about_risks_of_tablet_form

There is a talk page discussion debating what a recent systematic review concludes about adverse effects of apple cider vinegar consumption, and whether WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policy supports inclusion of these statements. MarshallKe ( talk) 18:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: The reference in question is: Launholt TL, Kristiansen CB, Hjorth P (September 2020). "Safety and side effects of apple vinegar intake and its effect on metabolic parameters and body weight: a systematic review". European Journal of Nutrition (Systematic review). 59 (6): 2273–2289. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02214-3. PMID  32170375. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The inaccurate post above does not reflect the issue under discussion. The RFC is about content that has been reported on by outlets like The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Intercept, The Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, BBC News, and The Hill alongside the extensive article from Yahoo News.

Specifico's unfortunate phrasing fails to mention that a large measure of the trouble brought about on the talk page is his own doing. His long-term effort to assert his POV on the article by ridding it of any content critical of the actions of the UK and US governments that he thinks he may be able to rid it of, no matter how widely reported, has been a significant cause of the talk page's slightly ridiculous page size for some time. Choosing to disparage the editors trying to maintain NPOV on the page, and who are thus forced to become opponents of this effort, as self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US is rather a low point in this history. Cambial foliage❧ 09:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets lay off the snark and general incivility. Nor is this request neutrally worded. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I debated between the RSN and NPOV, and ended up here. Here's the primary source in question:

The Israel Lobby and the European Union

Of the three authors of that paper:

• David Miller - Has been publicly accused of anti-semitism (link)
• David Cronin - Blogs for the Electronic Intifada
• Sarah Marusek - Is a Pro-Palestine activist

And the discussions that have happened so far.

• /info/en/?search=Talk:StandWithUs#Non_reliable_sources_-_should_be_removed
• /info/en/?search=Talk:StandWithUs#Sources_biased_against_group_do_not_belong_in_lead

I'm under the contention that in the context of writing about Zionist Orgs, BDS activists and writers for Electronic Intifada writers should be seen as hostile, and their writing should be seen as an opinion, not factual.

This source has been used to define StandWithUs as "right wing" and is currently being used to criticize the organization in the lead: "Reportedly SWU work closely with the Israeli government, do not believe the West Bank is occupied and support Israeli settlements"

Bringing in @ Selfstudier: for a contrary view.

This same issue exists with other sources on the same page, with self-proclaimed BDS activists being used to define StandByUs. I suspect that this problem will come up again on other pages. So I'd like to see if we can get a clear resolution.

So I'd put it up to a vote:

• Option 1: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: In the context of Zionism, there is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

An accusation of anti-semitism does not make it so, and an academic's professional output can't be disregarded on the basis of their personal activity, including participation in BDS. But it isn't exactly controversial that StandWithUs is right wing. The Forward: Rothstein rejects the claims of critics who say this constitutes a right-wing agenda. But a close look at SWU’s learning material and talking points reveals a right of center narrative on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Haaretz: The Prime Minister's Office will pay the right-wing Israel-advocacy group StandWithUs just over 1 million shekels ($254,000) to help it push the government's political line this year via social media, the Israeli media website The Seventh Eye reported on Tuesday. Waxman, Dov (2010). "The Israel Lobbies: A Survey of the Pro-Israel Community in the United States". Israel Studies Forum. 25 (1). Berghahn Books: 10. ISSN  1557-2455. JSTOR  41805051. Retrieved 2021-09-29. includes StandWithUs in its list of right wing pro-Israel groups as well. nableezy - 20:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it would be interesting to turn the question about, wouldn't it? Should Zionist orgs (what is a Zionist org, anyway? Do you mean pro Israel?) be used to define BDS? Because if not, there is a lot of stuff I can go delete on the BDS article. I made it clear on the talk page of the article what I think, for each of the reasons you gave above for discounting the authors, my considered response would be "so what?" If bias is the only argument, you would need to demonstrate an active and strong bias and I see no evidence of that up to now. I say option 1 for this source absent any further evidence. "In the context of Zionism" is a false premise, the source is commenting on SWU, not "Zionism". Selfstudier ( talk) 21:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Flip it around? The BDS article has a single sentence in the lead and it begins with the phrase "Critics say that...".

That's how I've been advocating that these sources be used, and it's the model for how BDS activist descriptions of Zionists and pro-Israel orgs should done across the site. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A "model" is inappropriate, every case is different and depends on what the sources say. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This source is clearly a work of advocacy - it is sponsored by EuroPal Forum, described as "an independent organisation advocating Palestinian rights", and funded by "Friends of Al Aqsa" whose golas are (among other things), "Putting pressure on the British government" and "Mobilising international condemnation for Israel’s apartheid policies to be manifested through the boycott of Israel". It may be usable for the authors' opinion, but that's about it. It can't be used to state things as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Inf-in MD ( talk) 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue here, you don't get to comment here and then go enforce your opinion at the article, please wait for the conclusion of the discussion. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You introduced controversial material into the lead, and it was challenged and reverted. Now we discuss. That's how it works. Inf-in MD ( talk) 22:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We were already discussing it. (btw, BRD is not a policy because you still need a proper reason to revert something). Selfstudier ( talk) 22:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason was given above: we can't use highly biased advocacy sources to state things as facts in the lead. Inf-in MD ( talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I generally dont think we should use ones political opponents to define them, but you cannot dismiss an academic work on the basis of the academics politics. I didnt really look at this specific source, and if it is advocacy then it should not be used as anything other than opinion. But for the content, which I think this board is concerned with, it is easily sourced to third party non-opinion sources that StandWithUs is right-wing. And that isnt a NPOV violation to say so absent sources that actually say that it is not. nableezy - 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not academic work, though. It is advocacy, funded by an advocacy group and published in a non-peer reviewed medium. It's written by people who happen to be academics, but that does not automatically make all their output "academic work" as that term is used here. Inf-in MD ( talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's the "right wing" thing he is complaining about, I resolved that with a ToI link saying SWU is right wing, which is not a criticism anyway, just a fact. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Nableezy: This source is used six different times on the page. It may be used on other pages too.

It seems that it is indeed advocacy, so I'd like to see if we can get agreement on the following:

* This source should be considered generally unreliable in terms of describing Zionism, Zionists, and Zionist Orgs

* It should be used sparingly in that context

* It can only be used in that context for opinions which are spelled out as criticism, not factual content. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we not voting anymore? The six times should be easy to fix, at least two of them are lead cites for things already cited in the body. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd avoid David Miller due to his promotion of conspiracy theories related to the Syrian Civil War. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• 'Option 3. Very biased, some embroiled in antisemitism controvesies, and with conflict of interest in regarda to their BDS aftivism. Best avoided, unless showing a viewpoint of an opponent of Zionism is due.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

*Option 4: And not because I'm pro-Israel. Activist sources (and even activist non-specialist academics) should be considered unreliable on any political, social or historical topic. They are a main reliability issue faced by wikipedia: '"Oh but assistant professor in critical dance theory from Omaha community college says that X happened - we NEED his opinion in the Lede."' It is a major flaw in the project. Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Non ecp editors not permitted to participate in internal project discussions related to IP area. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Judging by the !vote options, it's clear that this is not an WP:NPOV issue, or at least, it's not formulated as such. I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ M.Bitton: I did a search. The source is used multiple times on StandWithUs, and only used as a reference on one other page as a trivial reference. So far, only Selfstudier seems to be defending it as a reliable source. Nableezy was somewhat equivocal saying _if_ it's advocacy it should go away. Is there really a need to rehash this entire conversation on RSN, or can we just move toward closing it? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Bob drobbs: Closing it won't change the fact that even if consensus is achieved here (it doesn't look that way), it will be invalidated by the inappropriate venue. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @ Selfstudier: Are you willing to agree to remove the content from this source, and replace it with content from other sources? Or are you going to insist that this conversation continue and be relocated to WP:RSN -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• @ Bob drobbs: As I said on the talk page I have been collecting up source material from here and there, it is only recently that I have taken an active interest in the matter, previously I was only really concerned with the "right wing" business. The material has already been reverted out of the lead by another editor with the result that the lead currently reads like an ad so the case is not so pressing, since you yourself were the person who moved the material into the body from the lead and it seems reasonable therefore to assume that you agreed with the content at the time, you just didn't like it being in the lead. Frankly, the attempt to turn the lead of this article into a puff piece for the org is disturbing, afaics this org is way worse than the source you are complaining about here, I would never under any circumstances use them as a source for anything, most of their sps claims are refuted by reliable sources and I intend to add them. It is up to you to decide whether to take the matter to RSN which was what I had suggested in the first place, I don't really know why you brought it here. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Selfstudier: The latest version of the page has the content removed from the lead, included in criticism, and it has David Miller spelled out as one of the authors with a link to his page. I'm happy with that if you are. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 22:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Bob drobbs: It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right? Selfstudier ( talk) 22:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The political views of writers has nothing to do with whether their facts are accurate. Facts and opinions are different things. As Sen. Pat Moynihan once said, while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. And anyway, what ideological positions would you consider acceptable? Would a Zionist source be acceptable? Or do we need to find sources that express no opinion? Are we supposed to carry out ideology checks on all writers? There is nothing in policy and guidelines to support such a position and it would become very unwieldy. TFD ( talk) 00:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces: Someone above described it well -- "I generally don't think we should use ones political opponents to define them.... Though, I'd take it further and say that we should only use one's political opponents to define them as a last resort. But that's just my opinion and I've learned it's not against the rules.

I do note that on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page, claims that it's anti-Semitic, from the ADL (a reliable source) are phrased as "Critics say..." instead of writing them as fact ("BDS is anti-Semitic"). That seems 100% correct to me. Would you suggest changing that?

Moving on, the source in question has other issues. It seems the reason we can't get agreement to label it as "advocacy" is only Selfstudier's obstructionism. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The ADL says in "Is BDS Antisemitic?" which is used as a source for that conclusion:

Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. Often time, BDS campaigns give rise to tensions in communities – particularly on college campuses – that can result in harassment or intimidation of Jews and Israel supporters, including overt antisemitic expression and acts. This dynamic can create an environment in which antisemitism can be expressed more freely.

And, all too often, BDS advocates employ antisemitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel. [52]

The reference to self-determination is taken from the the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. [53] The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism for example does not support this and in fact says that BDS is not anti-Semitic. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) does not mention this in its article about anti-Semitism and does not list BDS as a hate group. [54] Ironically, David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, who is cited as accusing David Miller of anti-Semitism is himself controversial. On the day the article appeared, the Pears Foundation removed their name from the institute because of Miller's dispute with the IHRA about its working definition. [55] In this article, Feldman says it is unclear whether BDS meets the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism since it says that among other things opposition to the Jewish right to a homeland “could, taking into account the overall context,” not meet the definition. [56]

While I am not saying BDS is right, I am saying that whether or not it is anti-Semitic is disputed. Bear in mind that it supports equal citizenship for Jews and Palestinians in a secular One-state solution. While it may be subtle anti-Semitism, it's not in the same league as holocaust denial or other blatant anti-Semitism.

You mention that there may be other issues, but the poster chose to focus on this one. They should have said, "Is this an article by experts, which meets rs, or is it by activists, which doesn't." When someone asks a question by putting in every possible argument, I will oppose it if any of their claims fail. One should not present multiple arguments in the hope that one of them will stick.

TFD ( talk) 02:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think in the essence of neutrality, it would be best, as this appears to be a decent source, that considerations be given their WP:DUE and that certain controversial perspectives can be attributed. ~Gwennie🐈｟ 💬  📋｠ 01:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 as BDS activists are way too involved in the subject so are not neutral. Free1Soul ( talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5: it's not an RS at all and shouldn't be used for any purpose. Nevermind the authors, the publisher doesn't appear reliable. This report is published by advocacy organizations (and not by a university press, it's just hosted on a university website), it says so right on the first page (the publisher is SpinWatch Public Interest Investigations, an antipropaganda nonprofit, and it's also sponsored by EuroPal Forum, a pro-Palestinian nonprofit). This is not an academic paper. Using this as a source would be like citing WINEP: shouldn't be done. We should stick to academic works and not advocacy works. Universities, not non-profits. Also this is an RSN thread not a NPOVN thread (and anyway, generally reliable/unreliable/deprecated is for publishers, not individual works). All these issues are discussed in sections of WP:RS: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SPONSORED, and WP:PARTISAN. If it were partisan scholarship it might be ok with attribution, but because it's sponsored by advocacy orgs (and published by them), it's not an RS at all. Levivich 15:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

None of those links say anything close to what you say they do. What they do say though is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This is not sponsored content, so I am not entirely sure what that reference is to, but feel free to clarify it. But this isnt even RSN, it is NPOVN, and several sources support the material. What is proposed here is removing academic expert sources on the basis of their personal affiliations. Now I didnt think Wikipedia would ever actually have such an argument, where internet sleuths are challenging actual expert sources, but I cant honestly imagine that you would even begin to support such an idea as it seems rather antithetical to many of your positions on sources that I am aware of. nableezy - 13:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The same information has been alternatively sourced rendering this question moot as a practical matter. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • A good example of why it's rarely worth arguing about whether a source is an WP:RS: anything a questionable source says that is WP:DUE will be easily found in other uncontroversial RSes. Because we summarize multiple RSes, DUE article content will rarely hinge upon a single RS (except for obscure subjects, which this is not). BTW I noticed StandWithUs cites a bunch of unreliable sources, like those listed as yellow at RSP. Levivich 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The reliance on the source has been greatly reduced in the article, and it's no longer being used to define the group. But it is still being used, so this topic isn't totally moot. (link) -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • That sounds like an ordinary content dispute about whether someone's opinion is WP:DUE for inclusion which can be handled on the article talk page with the usual dispute resolution methods. But I will say this: we shouldn't cite to someone's opinion for their opinion. A source is a primary source for the opinions of the author expressed in that source. Instead, we should be citing to a secondary source (this is also written up in WP:RS). So if Person A writes Article A expressing Opinion A, we should not cite to Article A for "According to Person A, Opinion A". Instead, we need a reliable secondary source (Article B written by Person B), which says "According to Person A, Opinion A". In other words, cite Person B/Article B for Person A's opinion. The reason is that Person A's opinion is not significant and thus not DUE for inclusion unless some other reliable sources have written about it. (And this is why there is almost never a reason to cite an unreliable source for any purpose in a Wikipedia article.) Levivich 17:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I refuse to vote because framing complex issues, esp. by profiling the politics of academics, as options is unwikipedian. As with the CounterPunch RS discussion, this leads to just a con fused mess by editors with little knowledge of the area, conceptual confusion and politicking instead of the careful evaluation of source, authorial qualifications, publication venue and context, and in that case a majority ignored the fact that scores of high profile scholars and academics publish in CounterPunch. By introducing an identical vote-for-one-of-4- options also here, we are introducing a dubious practice. A huge number of our sources in the IP area come from academics with a strong POV. This goes for both sides in the dispute. The anti-Semitism slur has been thrown at virtually every scholar who has objected to the occupation, from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein down. In rewriting the Hamas article, I accepted and used Matthew Levitt, despite the fact that his book is extremely biased. He has the credentials. Idem for Kenneth L. Marcus whose books and articles on anti-Semitism I find quite confused. One could go on for hours (I don't believe that anything Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote (voluminously) on a topic for which he was boosted as the world's foremost authority, is worth the paper it is written on. I think using him in Wikipedia is deleterious to its encyclopedic aims. Anything I read of his can be torn apart in seconds, if you have a simple grasp of history and sociology. But reluctantly we must accept him etc., as we do in Antisemitism in Europe etc.etc.) Using profiling of the politics of authors as a criterion for RS would set a dangerous precedent. We have to train editors to be grown-up, i.e. read closely and evaluate per context and rules, case by case, not create artificial criteria that simplify everything. Nishidani ( talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The reason this particular source was used is probably because after publication it was picked up by quite a few media outlets who likely thought the "lobby" aspect made a good story. Which it did, as subsequent events demonstrated:) Selfstudier ( talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Can this be resolved by agreeing to attribute the source? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently a dispute over at Talk:Éric Zemmour#Far right? on how Éric Zemmour political position should be labelled. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)